Phone: (03) 9563 4688


Address: 17D Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166

Latest Accounting News
Hot Issues
300,000 SMEs utilising $20K write-off, says ATO
‘A bad thing times 10’: ATO set for new SMSF blitz
Capital Gains and Renounceable Rights
Paperwork bungles lead to $38k in payments
Australian Dietary Guidelines and healthy eating chart (PDF)
Former director liable for company’s unpaid tax liabilities
Resources on our site to help you, your family and your friends.
Super for housing measures enter Senate
No Special Circumstances to allow Excess Super Contributions
Housing tax measures progress to Parliament
AirBnb – wrong tax outcome?
Are young investors wasting their youth?
ATO sending 'more letters than ever' on income tax errors
Powerful Budgeting, cash flow and Super Tools available on our site.
Property, unit trusts in ATO's sights
Australian Dietary Guidelines and healthy eating chart (PDF)
Major Bank Levy Passed
NSW tops list as ATO reveals billions in lost super
How is your super going, ready for retirement?
Australia's leading causes of death - ABS
ATO increasing data exchange with international regulators
Illegal SMSF early access scheme leads to $6,000 fine
Our 'hardest' SMSF tasks
Uber drivers hit for 10% tax
Lack of literacy promotes unrealistic goals
Taxpayer failed to prove that payments were “loans”
New STP dates confirmed as ATO goes on compliance blitz
ATO flags compliance project for FY17/18
Articles archive
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 3 July - September 2014
Quarter 2 April - June 2014
Quarter 1 January - March 2014
Quarter 4 October - December 2013
Quarter 3 July - September 2013
Quarter 2 April - June 2013
Quarter 1 January - March 2013
Quarter 4 October - December 2012
Quarter 3 July - September 2012
Quarter 2 April - June 2012
Quarter 1 January - March 2012
Quarter 4 October - December 2011
Quarter 3 July - September 2011
Quarter 2 April - June 2011
Quarter 1 January - March 2011
Quarter 4 October - December 2010
Quarter 3 July - September 2010
Quarter 2 April - June 2010
Quarter 1 January - March 2010
Quarter 4 October - December 2009
Quarter 3 July - September 2009
Quarter 2 April - June 2009
Quarter 1 January - March 2009
Quarter 4 October - December 2008
Quarter 3 July - September 2008
Quarter 2 April - June 2008
Quarter 1 January - March 2008
Quarter 4 October - December 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2007
Quarter 1 January - March 2007
Quarter 2 April - June 2006
Quarter 1 January - March 2006
Quarter 4 October - December 2005
Quarter 3 July - September 2005
Quarter 4 of 2009

From George and John

Merry Christmas and a Happy new Year to all our clients.
Powerful Superannuation tool on our site.
Gifts Provided to Employees at a Christmas Party – any FBT?
Reminder Tax Break Deadlines
Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Bungled Attack on Foreigners
Tax File Numbers (TFN) and Super Funds
Recognition of same-sex Couples in Super
Attitude of Banks to Insolvency
From the Desks of George and John
3 x Tax Time Checklists
Director Penalties – Workplace Relations Act
Tougher Sponsored Workers Policy
Insolvent Trading Defences
Case Study - Player Management Fee Deductions
Case Study - Player Management Fee Deductions
The courts have been considering the deductibility of management fees paid to professional footballers’ managers for some time.

The management fees were calculated as percentages of gross earnings from both playing and non-playing.  The majority of the players’ income in the relevant years was derived from playing activities.  A deduction was sought for a fee relating entirely to negotiating the players’ playing contract with their football club.

The taxpayer’s non-playing activities (e.g. endorsements and media appearances) could constitute a business, as conceded by the Commissioner.

The Full Court considered that the fee, incurred in negotiation the players’ employment contract was incurred in placing the taxpayers in a position to earn employment assessable income and was therefore incurred too early to be deductible.


The final say in this long saga has been made in favour of the AFL/NRL players.

The High Court now confirms that management fees paid off by professional footballers are deductible, because they were carrying on a business exploiting their sporting prowess and associated celebrity, and this was inextricably linked to their respective employment by their respective football clubs.

The tax act provides that a business includes any profession, trade employment, vocation or calling, but does not include occupation as an employee.

The High Court has interpreted this definition to mean that something more than mere employment is required for a business, but it does not prevent employment from forming an integral part of an overall business.

The playing contracts for the footballers’ employment with their club were revenue in nature, not capital.

The High Court has confirmed that it is possible to obtain and perform an employment contract as part of and during the course of running a business, meaning that employment contract income may be business income in some cases.

There was a synergy between both activities, such that it would be artificial to separate them, each player conducted his own business in a commercial and business-like way with the engagement of a manager being a particular indication of this commerciality and the fact the player contracts specifically contemplated the footballers concurrently undertaking non-employment promotional activities was relevant, as well as the tripartite nature of the player contracts between the AFL/NRL, together with the attributes of modern professional sportspersons, as noted in the earlier High Court decision of Stone (Olympic javelin thrower).

Many employment contracts will not have the above features, so many may not be able to parallel this favourable result.  This decision is also likely to impact personal services income rules in future.