Where is imcrook on this matter????

WA's housing construction industry has warned any move to change tax arrangements for independent contractors would have a devastating impact on home affordability.

The Board of Taxation and the Henry Tax Review both advocated tightening the rules governing independent contractors to ensure people were not using the existing system to avoid tax.

Business commentator Robert Gottliebsen says the move would be disastrous.

"It would transform the way millions of Australians work," he said.

The managing director of one of WA's largest residential builders, ABN Group's Dale Alcock, says tax rules that forced contractors to operate like employees would slash their income and erode the efficiency and quality of their work.

Mr Alcock says any changes would increase costs and make housing more expensive.

"Any significant change would affect affordability and this is a major issue both federally and at a state level. The cost efficiency and high quality homes enjoyed by the public in Australia would be a thing of the past," he said.

He says any attempt to force contractors to operate as employees would be met with stiff opposition.

"If the government thought it had an issue with the super profits tax, pull this one on and I think you'll find a very engaged residential construction sector that wants to fight it," he said.

The Assistant Treasurer Nic Sherry declined to be interviewed.

A statement issued by his office says changes to tax arrangements for independent contractors are not part of current policy.

The statement did not address the question of whether changes had been ruled out under a re-elected Labor government.

Verge wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 9:36am:


My own kids were deprived of the legacy of a $100,000 life insurance policy, because of alienation of personal services income through convoluted sham sub-contracting arrangements!

Verge wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 9:53am:


It is a long and sadly ironic story - but suffice to say that: after 3 years of continuous employment under a professional award with a $100,000 life insurance policy attached, the employer (a large public insititution with well-resourced human resource and legal departments) converted the employee to a sub-contractor.

After a period of time - and coincidentally (not!) subsequent to employment records being subpoenaed to court - the employer interposed a third entity and the 2 sub-entities cancelled and re-issued a large number of associated invoices (some of which had already been paid by the original employer to the 2nd interposed entity).

I have in my possession copies of all the relevant invoices over a 3 year period - and most of the cheque requisitions (all of which were signed off by the same two people) - amongst other evidence unwittingly provided by external organisations stating their belief that the original employment relationship had remained intact. The employer's own web-site still contains evidence that the employment relationship didn't change...

For various reasons, I have been in two minds about pursuing the matter much futher than I have already - not least because of the associated documentary evidence of outright fraud...

It is a tough moral decision - to take action that could potentially destroy the careers/lives of 3 people, to claim what rightfully belongs to my children - one that continues to weigh heavily on my mind after over 2 1/2 years...

Verge wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:25am:


The ATO has been involved - and that's another sad and ironic story...

Suffice to say that the original employer is a large PUBLIC institution - one for which there are strongly vested interests in avoiding media scrutiny of fraud - not least because there were Commonwealth Research Grant funds used in these sham subcontracting arrangements...

If I get any more specific, I would be publicly revealing the employer...


PS The circumstantial evidence alone is pretty damning - but I have more than one file box full of documents and the powerful original employer has indicated that they would defend any action to the hilt. Ironically, that in itself would likely render any court far more unsympathetic to their original actions in the sham. What do do, eh!?

Verge wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:35am:


I hear what you are saying, and I am certain of the pobative value of the material evidence - but my past protracted experiences with litigation lawyers, over an extraordinarily stressful period of 4 years, resulted in near bankruptcy for me and my kids...as was the stated intent/threat of the other party, who subsequently carried out another serious threat - of committing suicide (but at least the kids did not die in the process - a well-founded fear that I had lived with for about 7 years)...

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:40am:


Ta - methinks that we're just about due some!