QANTAS Singapore Basing [Archive]

Chimbu chuckles

3rd Mar 2006, 09:41

Perhaps QF management neads to get their heads around the fact that when someone is based in a country other than their own they are expats...as such the are non resident for tax purposes.

They are also typically supplied wih accom and school fees for a minumum of 2 children as part of a typical 'airline' package.

When I was based in Sin my 'expatriate allowance' was Oz$65000/annum on top of my wage...NET of tax!!!

That went towards;

$23000/annum (per child, I had one) for the Australian International School
$30000/annum rent for a 3 bedroom appartment...nice but not extravagant.
$12000/annum for transport allowance. Cars in Sin are off the planet expensive due taxes imposed so prohibitive...hence a grand a mth for catching taxies on company business.

What was interesting was the 65k was a fixed amount....whether or not you had children...it was a 'single mans contract'.

If QF is serious about basing new hires in Sin then the above is the minimum they should be offering....on top of their wages!!!

Clearly there is a dissincentive to base married guys with kids up there...but if they do they must be prepared to pay the money...invariably the wife will be unable to work unless highly qualified in a very narrow choice of fields...essentially Nurse Educator and Teacher.

The choice to send your children to a 'free' Public school is unavailable.

If the beanies cannot accept the above then they are just kidding themselves and any pilot given the option would be mad to accept a foriegn basing under any lesser terms.

Capt Fathom

3rd Mar 2006, 10:09

What's the big secret here? From what I have read, Qantas don't want to pay for anything. So the conditions for Singapore should not be a surprise!!

Datum

3rd Mar 2006, 10:31

It is a very poor reflection on QF management at all levels...

The company's most junior pilots are not being informed regarding the proposed 'Singapore Basing'....

What a way to join a company!... Come on QANTAS....the Terms and Conditions associated with the basing are bad enough.....You have let your most junior down already...at least have the decency to inform your people as to what is happening....

Your employees need to get on with their lives!:*

Chimbu chuckles

3rd Mar 2006, 13:12

Sounds like they are having trouble realising a big saving by paying a much lower gross than would be acceptable to Oz based crew...crap pay on Oz tax and without a NORMAL expatriate allowance...that will make the Sin basing purgatory.

Single pilots will need to share accom and forget married guys with even one child.

Why would you bother?

QFinsider

3rd Mar 2006, 13:46

As I understand it....

$15,000.00 allowance is taxable (not tax free)

Difficulty with respect ot the construction of rosters, legal as well as practical.

Weak Assurances of Singapore taxation rates for the pilots affected was one of the reasons I said NO. The company with its vast array of resources have done nothing. Neither did the old AIPA-A matter bought to the attention of the old AIPA a simple position/ costing from a reputable consultancy would have cleared up. It would appear that the pilot is not considered eligible, due I believe the amount of time spent out of Singapore.

Further there are issues with respect to the availability of training facilities. It has been stated there are not facilities for pilot training available in Singapore.

Many of the guys assigned have to be told by end of June(?) I think of their relocation.

As these issues relates to many of the terms of the EBA 7 the misrepresented or simply error ridden assurances are not standing up to scrutiny. The new AIPA is looking at it; closely...Watch this space or PM me if you would like some additional detail, ..For the record I am not part of AIPA, but i do know a few of them :ok:

OhSpareMe

3rd Mar 2006, 21:14

Can any of you people explain to me:

If you RESIDE in Singapore, and EARN your income in Singapore why would you be liable to pay tax in Australia on that income?
Please quote the relevant section from the Income Tax Assessment Act to back up your claims. And remember, it is now Year 2006.

In fact, the Singapore based pilots will pay tax to the Singapore IRAS based on their income earned in Singapore. If they are smart (big call for some you lot who think AIPA and QANTAS should also wipe your bums for you) they could apply for the NOR (Not Ordinarily Resident) scheme where pre-assignment income (i.e. the 15 grand) would tax free.
Just declare yourself a 'non-resident for taxation purposes' in Australia in your final tax return and get up to Singapore and pay their very generous taxation rates on the income you earn in Singapore. It is that simple. Hundreds of thousands of Australians do it all over the world every year.

But, like I have asked. If you can show me how you would be sending money back to the ATO then I will stand corrected.

The basing is a crap idea that will piss off a lot of people for an insignifcant amount of savings (some 3.0 million per year, which is small change for a 12 billion dollar turnover company). Frankly, I think it is not worth the savings or the grief. But it is going to go ahead, so if you are in line for a two year soujorn to Singas you might as well make the most of it.

Chimbu - As an expat I reckon you could send your child to a public school in Singapore - you just have to pay $1000 per year per child because you are a foreigner in addition to the monthly fees (something like $35 per month).

Datum

3rd Mar 2006, 21:28

Apparently, the Bilateral Tax Agreement between Singapore and Australia has a subtle clause in it, which prohibits two distinct groups from utilising it:

1. The Merchant Navy; and

2. AVIATORS....:uhoh:

Why?...I've been told that many within these two groups have abused it in the past....

Additionally, I seriously doubt whether the Singapore Government will make concessions to either the Australian Government or Qantas given recent events....:ugh:

Once again - Senior members of the last AIPA and QF Management have sold their most junior pilots out!!....for what...They have not only provided a very poor deal...they have also failed to understand the full impacts of such a move!:*

OhSpareMe

3rd Mar 2006, 21:40

Datum - I suspect you mean the 'Double Taxation Agreement'.

So please quote the relevant section that you claim applies to people earning income in Singapore.

So I could work for a company like Westpac and pay income tax in Singapore, but because I am a tax-abusing pilot I am going to be taxed by the ATO?

What is the difference?

Datum

4th Mar 2006, 00:07

OhSpareMe - Unfortunately I don't have a reference for you....

However, I believe the problem for Pilots and our friends in the ' Merchant Navy' is based on their requirement to spend a large percentage of time OS, that is NOT in Singapore (or Australia).

From what I understand, one of the numerous qualifying tenets of the 'Agreement' is that you must reside in Singapore for '183 days or greater' to be recognised as a 'Resident for Tax Purposes'....

However, I am also equally sure that a Taxation Expert (either based in OZ or Singapore) will know ways around this..

As a suggestion - Any Pilot who ends up being sent to Singapore....As a priority - ascertain independent EXPERT Tax advice prior to leaving Australia. DO NOT rely upon AIPA or QF to answer all your possible questions....:ok:

QFinsider

4th Mar 2006, 01:21

As I alluded to the treatment of the expatriate pilot as a Singapore local requires a certain amount of time be spent IN Singapore....Coming and going as these chaps(ettes) will be doing does not necessarily qualify them!

It could have easily been cleared up. Both RH (Old AIPA) BW(Old AIPA) and indeed the company failed miserably in that regard..Would not have taken much to clarify all the questions. Plenty of independant consultant, tax specialist types...Most companies do that prior to sending anyone overseas.

But with the management of Flight Ops and the company at present it is bullying and intimidation..Dialogue is not important and stupidly enough 52% believed the crap from management and BW, RH....

As datum said get your own advice, but the new AIPA is very concerned at the devil in the detail

OhSpareMe

4th Mar 2006, 02:50

One thing that is for sure is that if you reside in Singapore, exercise employment in Singapore and are domiciled in Singapore then you WILL NOT be a 'Resident for Tax Purposes' in Australia.

Even if you don't qualify as a Tax Resident in Singapore due to the 183 day in country requirement (I think you will, but for the sake of the argument lets say that you don't) then the worst case is that you will be a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes where you will be taxed at a flat rate of 15% of your assesable income. Considerably better than in Australia.

If 'New AIPA' are concerned about the devil in the detail then they had better get cracking on it! It is already March, and the basing starts in June.

By all means, people in the firing line for this basing should satisfy themselves with professional advice regarding the taxation issue. I think you would find that it really is not as big an issue as some make it out to be.

Finally, wait and see how many Captains take up a voluntary basing in either Singapore or London. Why pay $100,000 of your hard earned to Honest Johnny when you could get away with paying about $30,000 to Lee and his mates. (Tax in G.B. is obviously more than in Singapore)

LookinDown

4th Mar 2006, 06:48

As Datum pointed out, QF’s poor communication to their front line troops is their worst offence. It is not just with regard to the Singapore basings. The eleventh hour notifications on crucial aspects of crewing (which are too often twelfth hour) especially to the more junior are not necessary and can only be attributed to one of two reasons…

Either organisational and planning inefficiencies are leading to policy lagging behind developments ie the cart is leading the horse, or good communication especially with junior crew isn’t regarded as low priority. Both are unforgivable in a field where human factors are so closely related to work performance.

I suspect it’s a bit of both with moreso the former. Middle management is hamstrung with regard to making specific calls because they have often have no well considered framework or guidance to operate within. No advice re Sim access was available with the release of the other info because it hadn’t been considered in time.

The $15000 is paid into a Singapore bank account after arrival which must be set up beforehand. Can anyone advise if this is for tax compliance purposes?

There are some outstanding public schools in Singapore and I can provide contact details. I could also chase up clarification re expat enrolment if anyone needs it.

OhSpareMe

4th Mar 2006, 18:18

Basing commences 12 June 06. Basing term is for two years, extendable to three, negotiable to four.

$15000 AUD relocation allowance paid to Sing bank account. Air freight of personal effects. One FOC ticket home whilst on leave. No accommodation allowance, or other type of allowance for that matter.

120 S/O's is news to me, so I can't dispute/confirm that. Original plan was for 90, but would not put it past the Company to increase the numbers as they see fit. I can't remember seeing anything about a numbers cap in the Letter of Agreement setting up the terms of the basing.

404 Titan

5th Mar 2006, 12:01

Are you an Australian Resident for Tax purposes?

I find the whole tax debate question between Singapore and Australia quite interesting and to some extent misleading. Considering the number of Australians living and working there and paying tax there, I really can’t see any difference to QF pilots living and working there. The only question is how the Singaporean Taxation Office would consider them for tax purposes. If I can put it very simply, if you can prove to the ATO that you aren’t an Australian resident for tax purposes then you aren’t liable to pay Australian tax on foreign income earned. The ATO uses a number of criteria to determine residency status. These criteria are NOT exhaustive in any way:

1. Number of days in Australia in the last financial year. Must be less than 180 days.
2. Can you prove you are a resident of another country for tax purposes?
3. Where is your primary residence?
4. Where do you derive your primary income from?
5. Club memberships.
6. Where does your family live?

Unfortunately I’m not familiar with Singapore’s taxation act so someone with prior experience there is probably best suited to answering that question. I am though very familiar with the requirements that need to be met for the ATO. Questions of Taxation treaties only apply to prevent double taxation, i.e. paying the full Singapore Taxation and the full Australian Taxation if you are deemed by the ATO as a resident of Australia for tax purposes.

Poto

5th Mar 2006, 15:21

June 12th I don't think so!!!!!!!

OhSpareMe

5th Mar 2006, 18:05

I don't think anything I have posted here can be construed as misleading.

Go and do the research. You all have access to the Internet (obviously) so the websites for both the Singapore IRAS and the ATO are available with a wealth of information regarding the tax situation. Initially it looks intimidating and confusing, but once you work through the issues it can be sorted.The way to do it is to ensure that you are not a 'resident for taxation purposes' in Australia. This means don't try commuting to/from Singapore.

WalkintheClouds - the pilots can come back to Australia as often as they like. Although I feel the rosters will not permit a return to Australia during each period of days off. They will only be afforded one FOC ticket during the period of the basing(bit stingy in my opinion considering they work for an airline!). The issue here is whether they are returning to Australia often enough to considered a 'resident for tax purposes' i.e. commuting whereby they will land themselves in trouble with the ATO. One could remain a 'resident for tax purposes' in Australia and be engaged on 'continuous foreign service' for periods of up to 90 days and have their 'foreign employment income' exempt from Australian tax. There are some conditions attached to that situation which would allow you to return to Australia without breaking your 'continuous foreign service' (recreational leave, compassionate leave, short business trips, etc) and you would need to be careful there so that you didn't give the impression you were commuting.

Start with this link:
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/28908.htm

Or you could just declare yourself a 'non-resident' and live in Singapore, earn your income there and pay Singapore tax on that income.

POTO - the guy with the inside info. The latest 'official' information I have is that the basing is due to start on June 12. Now if the management staff are floundering around the office not knowing how to get it started (the uncharitable side of me would suggest that is a usual state of affairs for QANTAS) then so be it. In fact I hope they don't start the thing, as I said earlier I don't think it is worth the grief for $3.0 M p.a. savings. QANTAS could probably save more by extending the freeze period on type to three instead of two training years (that is just my gut feeling - I don't have the figures on it). The basing has more to do with satisfying a 'personal quest' that the carriage of SO's to/from Asia is inefficient (some merit to this)

As I said earlier - go and do the research. Better still give the ATO a call (like I did) and explain the situation to them.

I bet all those hundreds of thousands of Australians earning income overseas are packing themselves (not) that they will have to pay tax on that income when they return to Australia.

Come to think of it - I wonder about my mate in Cathay. He is an Australian yet doesn't seem to be paying tax in Australia on his income earned in HK.

Or that other OZ mate of mine working for EASYJET. Yep, he pays tax to Her Majestys' Government but the ATO doesn't get a slice of action. I wonder why?

Or the other OZ friend who works for Babcock and Brown in London. Yep. No ATO involvement there either.
So why would a QANTAS pilot 'residing' in Singapore and 'earning' income there be subject to Australia tax ON THAT INCOME. If I was a 400 SO I would be onto this like a rat up a drainpipe.

Now guys I must go. Wife is up with screaming child and I am sneaking a little look at PPRUNE. (Yes dear I am coming now) Gotta go. Good luck with your research. I promise it won't hurt you.

(stands by for selective quoting)

mustafagander

6th Mar 2006, 00:13

OSM,

How many of your friends are employed O/S by an Australian company, were recruited in Oz and are based O/S for a fixed term, after which they will return to Oz maintaining continuous employment with said Oz company?

404 Titan

6th Mar 2006, 03:26

mustafagander

Whether an employee is employed by an Australian company or not is irrelevant in the ATO’s determining of residency status for tax purposes. There are plenty of Australians living and working in Singapore and else where in the world for Australian banks who are not Australian residents for tax purposes. They usually go to these countries with the intent to return to Australia after few years. This is no different to QF SO’s going to Singapore with the expectation of returning to Australia as well after a few years overseas service.

WalkintheClouds

11th Mar 2006, 12:53

The s/o of Qantas have been told that they will subject to 11% tax rate in Singapore, which is much less than here in Australia (top margin i think).

Ohspareme has doubted that whether this is a good decision for Qantas and S/O. I just wondering why the airline came up with this idea?? Do they really save a lot of money by carry one S/O from Australia to Singapore?? Or is it due to the 900 hours limitation of pilots?:confused:

Poto

11th Mar 2006, 14:37

two reasons: a reduction in payroll tax contributions have to be made by the company plus? + (and a big plus) is that a second s/o won't be required to operate to Asia. That is a substantial saving in man hours. These hours will be allocated to the Europe Runs.
S/o's choosing Singas are looking at a substantial tax saving (despite popular belief to the contrary) It is a Sh@t deal for those who have Family commitments:ouch:

Datum

12th Mar 2006, 01:57

I wonder if any of the narrow minded bean counters at QF have examined how much of the rumoured $3.0 million in savings (due to the proposed basing) will be redirected into the coffers of Singapore Airlines....???

Given QF SOs and their families are:

1. Only entitled to 1 x FOC trip home for their entire basing (2-3 years);

2. Relatively low priority on QF Staff Travel;

AND:

3. The relatively high QF pax loads ex Singapore (both Northbound and Southbound); and

4. The far greater diversity on the Singapore Airlines Route Network....

....It would not surprise me if many QF SOs based in Singapore became SIA Frequent Flyers and then used the competition to get around and see the region and the world... whilst based OS. Effectively, this would REDIRECT a substantial % of the supposed savings straight into the capable hands of SIA management!!:oh:

Bolty McBolt

12th Mar 2006, 03:51

QF have a few ways of paying their O/S employees.
Local conditions, local taxes etc and
Notional tax (old type system) where equivalent of Australian tax is taken out of your pay, QF pays host country tax on your income and keeps the difference to pay for other inclusions in your contract ,e.g. rent assistance, car etc.
Your salary can be paid to you in the host country or Australia this does not effect your Non resident status.
Either way you do NOT pay tax in Australia, as you are a NON-resident for tax reasons.
The only issue you have with the ATO tax department is if you have an income derived in Aus .For example property rents shares dividends etc or if you return to Aus for more than 180 days and then different conditions apply.

To those in the know
How are the SOs going to be paid ?

In Australia in AUD $ leaving the SOs to draw their cash from ATMs incur bank fees etc
In Singapore in SGD $ equivalent to their Australian pay and watch QF make a percent or 2 fiddling with the exchange rate.

Or a mixture of both….

As far a becoming a SQ frequent flyer…To expensive but great deals on Jet* Asia Tiger and Silk to visit anywhere in Asia. Getting on a QF flight out of SIN. It must be the easiest place to fly out of as you don’t have to worry about being bumped on a transit.

Bolty McBolt

12th Mar 2006, 04:21

Tax Rates for Singapore in SGD $
Its a roughy but I am sure people can work it out or go to the link below
Start Bracket End Bracket Rate % $ in bracket
-000 19,999 0.00%
20,000 30,000 4.00% $400.00
30,001 40,000 6.00% $599.94
40,001 80,000 9.00% $3,599.91
80,001 160,000 15.00% $11,999.85
160,001 320,000 19.00% $30,399.81

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/DocID/4610E4DB559EF813852569A6001FC64C

http://www.mof.gov.sg/taxation/indiv_income_tax_rates.html

OhSpareMe

12th Mar 2006, 05:32

Bolty - SO's will be paid in Australian dollars directly to a nominated Singapore bank account. So they will have to wear the currency changeover and other fees along with the inevitable exchange rate fluctuations.

Come off it Datum - do you really think that some SO's flying SingAir home occasionally is going to get the QF Bean Counters all worked up? Doubt it. In fact why don't you have a stab at producing some figures to justify your,

Quote
Effectively, this would REDIRECT a substantial % of the supposed savings straight into the capable hands of SIA management!! UnQuote.

Datum

12th Mar 2006, 07:11

OhSpareMe ;

All APPROX numbers:

Basing of 100 x SOs

Let's say they all spend $60,000/year in Singapore....Total...

As a conservative estimate - each SO spends 10% of his annual Total expenditure (goods and services) on travel related items/services. More specifically, 5% with SIA or with one of it's subsidary companies (not out of the question)...That works out as approx $3,000/year per person.

100 x 3 = $300,000.00/yr which is 10% of the 'reported' $3.0 millionin QF annual Savings due to the basing :oh:

Yes - you could argue that some SOs may not spend this much, some may spend more....whatever, the money will still be spent OUTSIDE AUSTRALIA! Furthermore, these figures do not include any additional expenditure by dependants.....

Just a thought....if you don't agree...so be it...no need to get shirty about it. Chill out. ;)

OhSpareMe

12th Mar 2006, 08:17

Good. Well done.

I don't think it is going to be an issue though.

*Lancer*

12th Mar 2006, 11:13

Why would Qantas give a flying Rats that Singair gets $30000. Qantas is still $2,970,000 ahead!

OhSpareMe

12th Mar 2006, 20:55

[QUOTE=
Just a thought, what if the basing isn't as good as they planned, what will happen then??[/QUOTE]

Dare say that they would probably close it. The whole basing idea is predicated on achieving at least 3.0 million per year in savings in order to justify doing it. Otherwise, according to its chief architect, it wouldn't be viable.

Then again we would not want a loss of face.

Lancer - recheck your figures mate. According to Datum it is $300,000 not 30K. (although I am not sure whether he is referring to SING $$ or AUD.)

Keg

12th Mar 2006, 23:04

Do they really save a lot of money by carry one S/O from Australia to Singapore?? Or is it due to the 900 hours limitation of pilots?:confused:

The money saving is not in carrying the extra S/O, it is in accommodating and paying allowances of said S/O in SIN for the longer term.

Cost of S/O coming SYD-SIN remains the same, as does accommodation and allowances. The big saving is the cost of the 'extra' S/O going north (or coming south). QF saves at least $300SGD per night for every S/O they have living locally in SIN. On ball park figures One S/O is a saving of at least $110K SGD ($150 allowances and $150 accommodation) per day. Given that they tend to have two days there, we're now saving at least $600SGD for every S/O that doesn't have to go to SIN. Given that there are probably six to eight S/Os a day that go northbound out of SIN, that adds up to a saving of $600 x 8 x 365= $1.75Mill SGD. My numbers could be short by 20% or more (I've gone cheap on the accommodation cost) and so it doesn't take much to get more than $2Mill SGD in savings.

Given that kind of saving for S/Os, I wonder how long until the offer of a 744 command but only available in SIN is forth coming? :( BOHICA!

Bolty McBolt

13th Mar 2006, 03:37

Keg
your figures look good but accom cost is $117 sgd per night.
I don't see how the 3 million adds up.

Will the SOs pay drop due to type of flying or increase due to the long sectors they fly?

Datum

3 k per year on travel. If you fly with a Singapore based LCC to visit the region you would spend about $200 SGD per trip, quite often cheaper with many specials around $150 incl taxes.
As a pilot I would have thought living out of a suite case half your life painfull enough with out adding another 15 trips per year to your lifestyle. The cost of living (=beer drinking/high rent) may also tie you down abit too.

Staff travel will be easy for the SOs based in SIN as they will be talking/working with the ops every working day and will get to know them.
For the SOs clever enough to make a friend or 2 with these people and plus a bottle of scotch/ciggarettes/timtams etc during the year I am sure they will not have any trouble getting on a flight any time of the year.

Keg

13th Mar 2006, 04:48

Fair enough. As I said, I my figures were 'ball park' but even using ball park they still come up about 30% short of the $3Mill quoted.

The S/Os in SIN will most likely earn more than the current S/Os- both gross and nett. I suspect their gross will be more because they'll likely be flying exclusively between SIN and LHR/FRA. Thus every time they sign on, they're looking at over time. Compare this to the SYD based S/O trip to LHR and back which doesn't include O/T on SYD-SIN sector. They're also going to get HEAPS of time off because most of the flying is back of the clock. Thus, a four day LHR trip will be worth about 34 hours (plus the six hours of o/t). Therefore, just five of them a roster gets you to 170- with about 30 hours o/t- which means about 20 days at work every eight weeks with day '1' starting at 2100hrs! :eek:

So, gross and time off will be bigger and better because every trip is highly efficient and has o/t. It'd basically be the same as doing five direct LAs a roster! Of course, you have to live in SIN to get the 'advantage' of all of this! :*

Full Noise

13th Mar 2006, 05:30

Hey guys,
Does anyone know when QF is running there next A330 or B747 ground school for new S.O's? I have herd not till around sep/oct. Is this true?
Thanks guys........

Bazzamundi

13th Mar 2006, 21:03

The base will not be on until at the absolute earliest late August. The company realise they are going to get very few volunteers so it will only start with a few and be built up over time.

Problems with tax have arisen, and there will be variances between the individuals as to how their tax situations are assessed (depending on personal circumstances). The name of the company they will work for is a problem (it cannot be Qantas) and this in turn leads to some problems - ie. you have to be seconded out from QF to this entity. Superannuation issues are also there (how they pay your super in Aus while you are working for a different company over there comes to mind). Not sure, but have also heard the length of time over there also comes into play when determining the eligibility for singapore tax (nasty rumour I heard but with no fact to back it up was you needed 3 years to get the best tax rate).

From what I have heard, there are quite a few issues causing grief for the company which they were unaware of last year, and thus the starting of the base is being delayed.

All rumour still at this stage. Just the most common theories I have heard.

OhSpareMe

13th Mar 2006, 21:17

Quote: The name of the company they will work for is a problem (it cannot be Qantas) and this in turn leads to some problems UnQuote.

Why is that?

Superannuation? Yeah I wondered about that as well. Guess they will find a way around it. If you are in Division 3 (the DB Fund) I can't see a problem as that is only a 'promise to pay' when you finish up and therefore no money is actually changing hands so to speak whilst you are employed. Div 6 however (the accumulation scheme) might present a little problem. Nothing they can't circumvent in any case.

Quote : Not sure, but have also heard the length of time over there also comes into play when determining the eligibility for singapore tax (nasty rumour I heard but with no fact to back it up was you needed 3 years to get the best tax rate). UnQuote

Well you can discount that rumour straight away. If you are employed in Singapore, earning income in Singapore, residing in Singapore then you will be paying Singapore tax on THAT INCOME. If you have other income producing assets in Australia then you will pay tax on that to the ATO (even if you are a Non-Resident for Taxation purposes) That is why each invidiual circumstance is different and it is why there hasn't (to my knowledge anyway) been a 'broad brush' statement from the Company or AIPA regarding the tax position.

*Lancer*

13th Mar 2006, 21:31

I thought they were using the Jetstar Asia vehicle for the locally based company

regitaekilthgiwt

14th Mar 2006, 03:03

The other place where the saving for the Singapore basing is coming from that is being missed is that a syd-sin-syd pattern for an s/o is worth say 20 hours roughly. So by carrying one s/o instead of 2 to Singapore they have more efficient crewing of the airplane and the 20ish credit hours for the 2nd s/o goes into the europe flying. So if a syd-lhr-syd via singapore used to get 50 hours. a sin-lhr-sin might be worth say 35 hours (very rough figures) so every 2 europes a singapore based s/o does, half of it pays for itself in so far as the company doesn't have to pay the extra 20 hours as well. Sorry that should be every 4 europes as they still have to send one s/o to singapore (for now)! Follow? :ugh:

They may make a loss with the futher disengagement and de-motivation of the remaining s/o's though. Once it is fully established, only Joberg and LA will get pretty demoralising for crew that often get little or no imput. If only the old AIPA & Qantas could have negotiated 1 lhr a day or something similar like the cabin crew did it might have shown somebody gave a sh*t about the junior people. Hopefully this new AIPA with a united stance from all pilots can help maintain and improve conditions for everyone in the QF Group.

QFinsider

14th Mar 2006, 04:06

Well here is something I was told recently.

According to someone who used to be on the company side in a management position, yet got a Christmas present.....And now flies the line.

The idea originally came from AIPA (BW and AM) the company looked at it, and offered one S/O to originate Sydney and fly the LHR and return, the second S/O would be picked up in Singapore. He could either be based there or... The company considered the new hire S/O losing paxing credits. They would pax up to Asia, operate to europe and return, then after the days off they would pax home!

According to my source, who was involved in the process the company never intended the basing it did in fact come from AIPA..
Knowing the parties concerned I believe that to be an accurate representation of the debate...I don't doubt it what a great thing for S/O's
The b*star$s:suspect:

Metro man

14th Mar 2006, 04:18

If possible try to arrange things to pay Singapore tax rather than Australian. Top rate 22%, but that only kicks in over S$320 000. As S/O highest marginal rate will be about 15%.:)

OhSpareMe

14th Mar 2006, 05:11

Well here is something I was told recently.
According to someone who used to be on the company side in a management position, yet got a Christmas present.....And now flies the line.
The idea originally came from AIPA (BW and AM) the company looked at it, and offered one S/O to originate Sydney and fly the LHR and return, the second S/O would be picked up in Singapore. He could either be based there or... The company considered the new hire S/O losing paxing credits. They would pax up to Asia, operate to europe and return, then after the days off they would pax home!
According to my source, who was involved in the process the company never intended the basing it did in fact come from AIPA..
Knowing the parties concerned I believe that to be an accurate representation of the debate...I don't doubt it what a great thing for S/O's
The b*star$s:suspect:

CRAP.

I challenge you to put that up on QREWROOM and have it tested.

QFinsider

14th Mar 2006, 11:20

I understand the concern, the doubts...
I am not going to post it on crew room it is easy to work out who i am and where I heard it, but ask the oracle himself. He told crews present on the night..
Well if it was a fabrication then it is a fabrication, I wasn't there. This guy was. As a former senior management fella he was present at the meeting(s)with respect to the EBA.
Knowing both BW and AM I cant say unequivocally they didn't propose it...

Ask him:ok:

OhSpareMe

14th Mar 2006, 13:28

I seem to recall (wish I could find it) your 'oracle' admitting that he wasn't involved in the EBA 7 negotiations.

What if BW, et al had proposed what you said. It is not part of the deal now so what is the point of your post?

Bolty McBolt

14th Mar 2006, 16:22

It is interesting to note the concerns here in this thread, Call me old fashioned but I would have thought the following would be of importance to the individuals whom are having to relocate...

If you are paid in Singapore and employed under local conditions in Singapore your Super in Aus will no longer have your contributions paid into it !!

If you are not employed by QF directly why should QF ever move you out of Singapore as they will enjoy the benefits of 3 million savings putting you there.
Is there any guarantee of a place in Aus ?

There is no Medicare or compulsory employer medical cover for employees whom earn over $2600 SGD per month in Singapore.
(Medical insurance for quality cover is about $400 SGD pre month. per person)

Will you be covered by workers comp if you are injured in the insane traffic travelling to and from the airport/place of work.
No such rules in Singapore...:ouch:

Your power bill will be around $400 per month to run aircon so you can sleep during daylight hours.

Phone bill $150 per month if you plan on calling home and if you bring your other half with you can add to that figure.

$1000 to 1500 per month in taxi fares

add on $2500 per month rent and beer at $20 a jug minimum

$300 trip to super market, a regular event to purchase an insanely small amount of western food especially if you like to eat fruit and vegetables.

Cable TV and internet $150 per month

I am sure there are a few other expenses but they don’t spring to mind

I honestly believe all this will achieve is a whole new round of expats joining Singapore airlines.

Good luck to those whom have relocate

OhSpareMe

14th Mar 2006, 18:27

Come on Bolty - you need to do a bit more research.
If you are paid in Singapore and employed under local conditions in Singapore your Super in Aus will no longer have your contributions paid into it !!
You will not be employed under 'local conditions' but rather a Letter of Agreement (LOA) attached to your Australian Certified Agreement. Your salary will be paid in Aust $$$ into a nominated Singapore account. Super is something that will need to be sorted, but I don't think QF will stop paying it.
If you are not employed by QF directly why should QF ever move you out of Singapore as they will enjoy the benefits of 3 million savings putting you there.
Is there any guarantee of a place in Aus ?
Because you are employed under the Certified Agreement (as amended by the LOA)
There is no Medicare or compulsory employer medical cover for employees whom earn over $2600 SGD per month in Singapore.
(Medical insurance for quality cover is about $400 SGD pre month. per person)
Correct. You will not be eligible for Medicare if you are residing in Singapore. But then again you will not be paying Medicare levy either. So you could then afford private health cover. If you had private cover in Australia you could suspend that whilst you are overseas in order not to jeapordise your lifetime health cover committment.
Will you be covered by workers comp if you are injured in the insane traffic travelling to and from the airport/place of work.
No such rules in Singapore...
You will be covered by the Personal Accident Scheme (PAS) whilst in Singapore. (According to the LOA)
I wont comment on your pricing for living expenses as they are for the individual except to acknowledge that some things can cost more than Aust.
However, 1200 - 1500 SGD on Taxis? Sounds like a lot considering you will probably be out of town for half the month. In any case, offset that against not running a motor vehicle in Aust.
Will it mean a flood of expats leaving QF to join SingAir. Well I don't think so. But good luck to them if they can get a better deal from SingAir. Might teach QF a lesson.

Metro man

14th Mar 2006, 22:02

Typical living expenses in Singapore:

For a 1 bedroom unit, Upper East Coast Road area S$1500/month+ (popular aircrew area half way between Changi and the city. A taxi to the airport will be +-S$10 from here)

Unless travelling to/from work with luggage use the train or bus to get around. Excellent service, frequent, cheap, clean and safe. Forget owning a car, really.

For food eat in the hawker centres, good and cheap s$4 a meal. Eat as the locals do, if you insist on having exactly the same diet as at home you can but it will cost you.

Private school, reckon on S$10 000 per child per year, not cheap !

For phone calls get Skype or use calling cards, very cheap.

Alcohol very expensive, likewise tobacco and no duty free cigarette allowance for anyone so forget about stocking up abroad.

Income tax very cheap, expect to lose around 10% of you salary IF paying Sing income tax.

In short not for everyone especially if wife, kids and dog come into the equation. Best if young, single and flexible. Then expect a very good time.

Transition Layer

15th Mar 2006, 02:50

Interesting to see that the company is finally admitting that it is "highly unlikely the base will commence before July 2006".

Hugh Gorgen

15th Mar 2006, 04:22

Metro Man, All

Where would you recommend someone with a family to live? We would prefer 3-4 bedrooms and do not mind living away from the city centre. Close proximity to transport, schools and shopping is also a strong preference. We would prefer to spend < S$2000 per month if possible.

Ta

Metro man

15th Mar 2006, 05:19

Hugh, for that sort of money you will definately need to be away from the city centre. Try http://www.singaporeexpats.com/ for some good information on Singapore property. Check your PMs

Bolty McBolt

15th Mar 2006, 09:01

Hugh Gorgon
Look at Bayshore Park an older block great ammenities but if you like to be near your kids schools that may dictate where you live.

Metro Man
Taxi fare $15 from airport..$10 each way from East coast to CHIMJES
East coast is a little lacking in Public transport as the MRT isnt close to the coastal condo's
If you are going to eat hawker stalls 100% I take my hat off to you.
You may as well eat burger king.
The food is great but heart attack material. Its great value but as any chinese man will tell you good things not cheap, cheap things not good.
Super market prices are higher depending on what you buy?
EG a packet of mixed lettuce leaf is $8 and fresh fruit n veg is a little dearer than syd.
Milk is $3.20 carton liter
Meat ..Beef is a similar price to Aus but lamb is export quality so its V dear.
But you can never get your whole shopping list from one store. Another taxi..

Phone calls.. Skype is a usefull tool so are calling cards but often have voice delay. You will use your phone

SpareMe
I have done my home work and I am only trying to pass on a few issues as I see them. I am not trying to scaremonger.

The reason I bring up medical is that few policies including car insurance cover any rehabilition after the accident included in the policy.

If the pilots can get super contibutions included in their package when employed under local conditions in Singa many managers around the QF group will be looking to do the same thing with their staff for when the question has been asked previously the answer has been a resounding NO.

A Certified Agreement
:yuk:

OhSpareMe

16th Mar 2006, 07:12

If the pilots can get super contibutions included in their package when employed under local conditions in Singa many managers around the QF group will be looking to do the same thing with their staff for when the question has been asked previously the answer has been a resounding NO.
But Bolty - they are not employed under local conditions. They are employed under the Certified Agreement a.k.a The Longhaul Pilots Award EBA7as amended by the LOA.

Bolty McBolt

17th Mar 2006, 03:23

SpareMe

When i use the term "local conditions" I used it incorrectly.

I was reffering to the fact that the SOs are going to be paid in Singapore under Singapore tax system
and still have contributions paid into their Aus superanuation.

This is something other departments have tried to include an been told no due to the cost.
If the pilots have cut this deal a few other departments will want to do same.
But if its not mentioned in your "certified agreement" the pilots may come to the same stumbling block.

touchncloth

17th Mar 2006, 08:43

The QF Flt ops website has been updated with some material for those interested in the Singapore basing.
It does appear that the tax issue + the super issue has not yet been solved. Both have been addressed in a Q & A:)

QFinsider

17th Mar 2006, 09:14

Having read the update, there is plenty of QF speak.
Lots of unsaid.
There is no way that the base will be operational by 12 June.
There is a distinct possibility that those poor buggers assigned prior to the EBA even being voted on will escape it! (which i hope)

I think for our much berated professional S/O's (yes I was one) there may be a little european flying for a few more bid periods.

I hope "manager projects Singapore basing" doesn't cop it for the thing being a pup....Mind you managers never do in QF:suspect:

Dropt McGutz

19th Mar 2006, 11:17

The deal so far is that unless you divest all of your Australian interests, including memberships to clubs etc, the ATO considers you still a resident. Therefore you are up for both Australian and Singapore tax. So if you are on say $120,000 bang goes $18,000 in Sing tax, and about $55,000 to Australia. Then to educate the two kids is another $50,000 per year. Therefore you are already $3,000 into your savings and you haven't even considered living expenses. It might be okay of you're single. It even makes the Jetstar deal look really good.

404 Titan

19th Mar 2006, 12:30

Dropt McGutz

As a former bean counter in a previous life I suggest you have a good look at the ATO web sight and see what the ATO use to determine your resident status for tax purposes. Just because one may own a house, has some Aussie shares and an Australian bank account most certainly doesn’t make them an Australian resident for tax purposes. If you also take a look at the ATO and Singapore IRD web sights you will see there is a very robust Taxation Treaty between Australia and Singapore so therefore you won’t be double taxed by Australia if you are a resident of Singapore for tax purposes.

WalkintheClouds

20th Mar 2006, 11:13

I reckon the best way to clear up all the queries about tax is that go for a tax consultant in an accounting firm (large to medium size). Within an hour, you'll be fine with these tax issues. I guess it gotta cost you around $100. Have QF ever provided those services to the S/Os? :suspect: Or you can go to the newsagency and grab a tax return package, then have a look yourself. It sort of help as well. Or make a phone call to ATO, the staffs have plenty of time to help you.

By the way, what is the 'Jetstar deal', Dropt Mcgutz? Thank you :)

B A Lert

21st Mar 2006, 01:11

You people pay AIPA a lot of money for annual fees. Why isn't that organisation offering taxation and other advice for its membership, or does it exist as the sole preserve for those at the top of the pile?

Dropt McGutz

21st Mar 2006, 01:17

B A Lert, why should AIPA be doing it? The company wants the base so they have an obligation to reveal the facts.
Walkintheclouds, the Jetstar deal I refer to is the wide body agreement the Jetstar pilots recently agreed to.
404 Titan, just repeating what I heard from a reliable source. Apparently the ATO are having a shot at both merchant seamen and pilots when it comes to living off shore.

B A Lert

21st Mar 2006, 01:27

B A Lert, why should AIPA be doing it? The company wants the base so they have an obligation to reveal the facts.
.

The answer Dropt M'brains, sorry, it's McGutz, is very simple: the union exists to protect and maintain the interests of its members. Even though Qantas may have put forward this proposal, isn't it incumbent on those who run AIPA to ensure that its members are not prejudiced in any way by the proposal? Unions obtain and offer all kinds of advice relating to employment to its members. AIPA ought be no different but then it's an 'association' rather than a 'union' and it's members would not regard themselves as humble 'unionsists'.

If AIPA is not offering advice on matters like this, it is shortchanging its youngest and most vulnerable members.

Dropt McGutz

21st Mar 2006, 05:14

Why can't the company say "this is the deal"?

Bazzamundi

21st Mar 2006, 07:59

The company is spending money getting tax advice. They have been told that each individual will be treated differently, and no hard and fast rules will apply to the whole group. Some will be not so well off, some will. The ATO is looking closely at the arrangement QF is setting up as the sole benefit to the individual is the tax concession.

This is holding it up. The company needs volunteers as well, and they cannot get this at the moment until things become more black and white. Not too many will volunteer for a crap deal.

Dropt McGutz

21st Mar 2006, 08:17

Thanks Bazza. That makes things clearer.

WalkintheClouds

21st Mar 2006, 11:21

The company needs volunteers as well, and they cannot get this at the moment until things become more black and white. Not too many will volunteer for a crap deal.

I guess the basing will be carried on even if there are no enough volunteers. Qantas has the authority to force them to go to Singapore regardless of their willingness. :ugh:

In fact, how many of them out of 300 S/Os are willing to go Singapore for at least 2 years???:suspect:

Bazzamundi

21st Mar 2006, 20:59

Who has been forced to go? If you have been in the company 3 years they cannot force you to go. Read the LOA. Nobody has been assigned as of yet.

Where some people may look as though they are being forced are the ones who have finally become permanent pattern and face the prospect of going back to rotating and being the most junior on type for the next 3 years. The financial penalty for this is significant, and some may feel that they may need to go to the basing to get away from this.

All well and good if you are single, but if married, engaged, or in a serious relationship, some people are going to suffer some personal disasters. It will make life interesting for people from now on. In 10 years, it is hard to imagine all the new hires who have had to suffer this setback being keen to stand up for the conditions of the more senior people who voted this in. Even if it doesn't save the company as much, it will be used to further divide the membership and erode their future resolve.

Freddy Fudpucker

21st Mar 2006, 22:02

Nobody has been forced to go. yet. With recruiting for this year almost non- existent ( and only 35 signed already for the base) there will have to be some forced to move if the required 100-115 S/O's is to be met.
Oh and as a little sweetner, I know that under some circumstances you can be classified as an Australian resident for tax purposes, meaning you pay aust tax whilst living in expensive Singapore.( but will you get your superannuation?? as you are paid by a Singapore based company??)
Nice nice like your work

404 Titan

21st Mar 2006, 22:50

Dropt McGutz

I think what you are referring to is the ATO’s taxation ruling 23AG. This was a ruling which the ATO brought out a number of years ago in relation to Australian residents working for foreign companies, in particular shipping companies and airlines. In the ruling the ATO essentially stated that Australians who live in Australia but work overseas for periods of time as airline pilots and merchant seaman are exempt from paying tax in Australia. This has since changed as the ATO have brought out a different ruling stating that these individuals are now liable to pay Australian tax as they reside in Australia. There are some legal issues still outstanding in regards to this ruling and the ATO acknowledges this. Until legislation is passed by Federal Parliament, legal advise suggest tax isn’t payable in Australia by these individuals.

This “ISN’T” the same as Australians living and working in Singapore for an Australian company. If a QF SO complies with all the ATO requirements that are freely available on their web sight, they won’t, I repeat won’t be liable to pay Australian tax. It is as simple as that. If they deviate outside those requirements, they may find themselves in a very grey area.

OhSpareMe

21st Mar 2006, 23:03

Good work 404 Titan. I know you, like me, must be tired of stating the bleeding obvious.
And here is one for the Fudpucker;
Nobody has been forced to go. yet. With recruiting for this year almost non- existent ( and only 35 signed already for the base) there will have to be some forced to move if the required 100-115 S/O's is to be met.
Extract from Letter of Agreement 167 (incorporated in EBA7)
(Note: Only those TSOs appointed from 31 May 2005 and beyond, whose letter of employment contains an explicit term specifying that they may be assigned to a Singapore are affected by clause 1.2)
So if QF don't recruit enough TSO's then that is their problem. Don't go looking for them from the existing SO ranks.
And yes I can't see how they (QF) can stop paying Superannuation, nor do I believe it is their intention to stop paying. Although as you wont be earning income in Australia you will not be able to Salary Sacrifice additonal contributions. This also applies to Motor Vehicles and Laptops that are currently permitted to be Salary Sacrificed
Stop the ill informed comment people. Do some research. It is very easy.

Freddy Fudpucker

22nd Mar 2006, 02:33

404 titan, I am referering to the ato's determination that you WILL be a resident if you meet certain criteria. Try this link

http://calculators.ato.gov.au/scripts/axos/axos.asp?CONTEXT=&KBS=residency_leaving.XR4

Sure you can make yourself a non-resident but some people might not be able to meet these requirements and hence WILL pay Australian tax. It is up to the individual to get a ruling from the ATO.

OhSpareMe
In all letter of appointments it says:
"Location of Employment" it states that you may be required to work at other locations in accordance with the certified agreement.

Now I realise what you wrote from LOA167. But what I am saying is that the big Q can send you where they want to and I bet that if they don't get the numbers then they will start on a non-voluntary basis from the end of seniority up.If this happens then it just won't be under the LOA167!!

I don't believe Q will stop paying superannuation (that would be un-australian!!). But being paid by an O/S company whilst being employed by Q is entering into a grey area.

Would be interesting to hear from some J* asia guys on what is their circumstance and by whom the are employed by.

OhSpareMe

22nd Mar 2006, 04:50

OK - lets all imagine we are Bronwyn...........
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/36280.htm&page=4&H4
Fudpucker.
..............................But being paid by an O/S company whilst being employed by Q is entering into a grey area.
What is this O/S company that everyone is alluding to? Your employment contract is with QANTAS Airways Ltd. Now that is an Australian company. The fact that you are based overseas is not relevant. You will still be employed by QANTAS Airways Ltd. The fact that your bank account is in Singapore is also not relevant. You need to ensure you make yourself, insofar as the ATO is concerned, a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes in Australia. You can achieve this by moving your residence (domicile) to Singapore and don't go commuting.

Yes you are right about the Letter of Appointment, but it is the Certified Agreement which is the basis for an overseas basing. The establishment of a basing is a significant undertaking and I doubt very much whether they (QF)are going to start 'posting' people to overseas ports. If QF wish to go down that path to 'fill up' their numbers in Singapore one would hope that AIPA would rapidly have them in court (again). LOA 167 is in 'black and white' so I can't see any grey areas there.

I don't believe that any SO not included in LOA 167 is under threat of being suddenly assigned to Singapore.

I imagine Jetstar Asia people are employed by Jetstar Asia even though some of them are QF employees on leave of absence.

Transition Layer

22nd Mar 2006, 05:16

Yet another thing working against those in line for the basing is the relatively strong Singapore dollar at the moment.

When the "Old" AIPA put the numbers together in that wonderful spreadsheet (god bless 'em), they worked it on a "worst case" scenario of 1 AUD = $1.20 SIN. At the time the rate was about $1.25 and had been around that mark for quite a while.

At the moment, however 1 AUD = $1.15 SIN. That means your salary, converted into Sing dollars and planted in your Sing bank account, won't go quite as far. As if the cost of living wasn't high enough! For a trend of the AUD vs. SGD have a look at http://www.x-rates.com/d/SGD/AUD/graph120.html

TL

Freddy Fudpucker

22nd Mar 2006, 05:36

Mate mate mate. this could go on forever and your tone indicates that you won't accept being proven otherwise.BUT......
Let me just reiterate what I have already stated in my previous. SOME people may be aussie residents ( Now your old mate bronwyn lived in her house, a little different if you don't or haven't. i.e. investment property). Each needs an individual ruling.

Quote:
What is this O/S company that everyone is alluding to? Your employment contract is with QANTAS Airways Ltd. Now that is an Australian company. The fact that you are based overseas is not relevant.

You should talk to the ATO about that. If your paid direct by an australian company then you pay australian tax. Phone them I dare you.

quote:
You need to ensure you make yourself, insofar as the ATO is concerned, a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes in Australia.

Thank you for supporting me on that one. However If you don't/cannot/ or are unwilling due to the financial sheit that will bring..... well you know what happens.

And Q can't non- voluntarily post you under LOA167. It says so in paragraph 1. But as to whether they can not under LOA167 is another matter. AIPA would be able to fight it, but with unions are becoming a little more than a social club it is hard to see Q doing anythin' other than what it wants too.

Hey TL you ole Morgan lubber. call me when you get out of the pool.

OhSpareMe

22nd Mar 2006, 07:04

Mate mate mate. this could go on forever and your tone indicates that you won't accept being proven otherwise.BUT......
What? That it wont go on forever?
The ATO will not give an individual ruling unless you want to pay for it. They will make an assessment on your return each year as applicable. They will of course give a general indication if you ask them the right questions.
Let me just reiterate what I have already stated in my previous. SOME people may be aussie residents ( Now your old mate bronwyn lived in her house, a little different if you don't or haven't. i.e. investment property). Each needs an individual ruling.
Well if you weren't living in a house then that is even better. You would now be RESIDING in Singapore which even further supports your claim to being a Non-Resident for Tax Purposes.
However If you don't/cannot/ or are unwilling due to the financial sheit that will bring..... well you know what happens.

Such as?

The facts dear boy, the facts.

404 Titan

22nd Mar 2006, 07:07

Freddy Fudpucker

Yep know that calculator and went through it to see how accurate it was. I answered it accurately and honestly and came up as a non resident for tax purposes. I can not for the life of me see how any QF SO who also met this test wouldn’t come up with the same result. As I said in my earlier post if you can’t comply with the ATO requirements for non residency then you are in a grey area. By the way this calculator isn’t fully complete under Australian Tax Law and if you are in a grey area you need to speak with a good taxation accountant and Lawyer, not the ATO. Generally you aren’t dealing with an accountant or lawyer in the ATO, just a clerk who wouldn’t know if their a**e was pointing at the Earth if they were sitting on it.
If your paid direct by an australian company then you pay australian tax.
What the……? Rubbish. I’m sorry but if someone in the ATO has told you this they don’t know what they're talking about. It just goes to prove what I said above, you need to get professional advice. There are hundreds of Australians working in Singapore and elsewhere in the world, being paid directly by an Australian company into their foreign bank accounts that “AREN’T” Australian residents for tax purposes. There isn’t any difference here with a QF SO. Even if it was a problem, which it isn’t, QF could just set up a company in Singapore to pay the SO’s through.

touchncloth

22nd Mar 2006, 07:26

Yeah did this ATO quiz as well-quite clear. It only did its nana when I put in that I will be return to Oz more than four times a year.
If this means that S/O's return for cyclics (initially) plus one trip back home you may well- NOT qualify for foreign taxation. The S/O's who were planning on more than one personal trip home per year may find this hard to swallow:ugh:

OhSpareMe

22nd Mar 2006, 07:39

If this means that S/O's return for cyclics (initially) plus one trip back home you may well- NOT qualify for foreign taxation. The S/O's who were planning on more than one personal trip home per year may find this hard to swallow

Have to disagree. Cyclic training would be considered as 'short business trips' and would not jeapordise your tax residency status. Come back as often as you like - just don't create the impression that you are commuting.

Freddy Fudpucker

22nd Mar 2006, 09:14

OhSpareMe, All I can say is you are not the arbitraitor of all things tax, the ATO is for australians.
This is a never ending circle with you. I actually want to believe your way of thinking, but in some cases it ain't the truth. For everyone out there that reads this then talk to the ATO. Get a ruling.
If you don't and you end up paying aussie tax, then the line " OhSpareMe told me that I wouldn't have to pay" just won't cut it.

404titan, All i can say is what the ATO said, that if you are directly payed by Q you will pay aussie tax, as your income is derived from Australia. Setting up a Singas based company will get a round that, but then it raises the issue of paying superannuation.

If anyone wants to find out for themselves rather than taking the advice from plonkers like me on proon then ring the ATO.

404 Titan

22nd Mar 2006, 10:34

touchncloth

And that is why I said the calculator isn’t complete under law. I return to Australia all the time because of my work and I am still classed by the ATO as a non resident for tax purposes. In regards to returning to Australia four times, (I don’t know where you got this figure from?), it really depends on your reason for returning to Australia.

Freddy Fudpucker

No where in the Australian Tax Act or on the ATO’s web sight does it say you will be deemed a resident of Australia for tax purposes if you are paid by an Australian company while your permanent abode is overseas. Deriving your income from Australia, i.e. rent or shares isn’t the same as being paid by an Australian company while based overseas. Obviously the person you spoke to in the ATO doesn’t know this but a good account does and so do the courts. If you want to get an idea if under your circumstances you will be classed as an Australian resident for tax purposes I suggest you have a read of TAXATION RULING NO. IT 2650 at:http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=ITR/IT2650/NAT/ATO/00001

Finally I have never said that everyone will be classed as non residents. Before accepting a position in Singapore I suggest everyone should get an individual assessment from a tax accountant, not the ATO. Most individuals though I would imagine will be classed as non residents if they follow the simple rules that can be found in the ATO’s web sight. I would has it a guess that Qantas is wanting a blanket ruling for all SO’s based in Singapore which quite rightly the ATO won’t do because every individuals situation will be different and it could open a Pandora’s box in the future for the ATO.

Just for the record I think the forced basing of new SO’s in Singapore stinks on the conditions being offered and I think your APIA and its members who voted for it have a lot to answer for in letting this get through. On the other hand most of the arguments regarding taxation I have heard on here are hear say and half truths which are obviously industrially motivated and lack any real substance. I suggest you fight this based on the cost of living in Singapore which most certainly has credit based on the package being offered and leave the taxation question to individual assessments that I would suggest all prospective candidates get before accepting the post.

Freddy Fudpucker

22nd Mar 2006, 21:35

Agree with all you say. I think it imperative for those who have borderline resident status to get a savvy accountant to figure out the best way to get around it.

As an addition i didn't get that info regarding being paid by an australian business therfeore pay australian tax from the ATO web site. It was verbally from an ATO overseas tax expert.:ugh:

Bolty McBolt

25th Mar 2006, 09:00

The basic rule of thumb as told to me by an sydney based O/S tax specialist is :-
Do you PLAN on being out of the country for next 2 years?

If the answer is yes, you can inform the ATO you are becoming a non resident for tax.

If you return to AUS for holidays training etc will not effect your tax residency unless you are in AUS for greater than 180 days per Fin year.

You will not effect your residency even if your wage/salary is paid into a bank account in Aus.

If you really wanted to know perhaps you could ask some of the QANTAS staff posted in cities outside australia.......:ok:

LookinDown

25th Mar 2006, 22:10

I considered some of the postings here to be overreacting to the determining of non-resident status. But then I looked through the Tax Ruling IT 2650.

The criteria seem clear cut but as usual the ATO always manages to have two bob each way. As my accountant occasionally reminds me, even private rulings are not assured and the ATO will at times challenge its own private rulings. By the way there was a reference earlier to a fee for private rulings. There was no charge for the last one I had a couple of years ago.

The various factors listed in the tax ruling seem to be able to be met by most SO’s. Scanning the list of examples towards the end of the document there is this one however: TAXATION RULING NO. IT 2650
INCOME TAX: RESIDENCY - PERMANENT PLACE OF ABODE OUTSIDE AUSTRALIA

38. An airline company employee took a 2 to 3 year posting to an overseas country expecting to return to Australia at the end of that period. She was accompanied by her spouse and children and purchased a home in the overseas country while renting out the family home in Australia. She was considered to have remained a resident of Australia. However, if she decided to stay in the overseas country for a further period of, say, 2 years, she was to be treated as a non-resident during the additional 2 year period.
Result: resident during her posting.

Note the similarities in the above example as they are worrying. Factors such as timeframe, taking family with you and renting out/selling your home here, don’t appear to have won over the ATO. For SO’s with families this may be a two edged sword. Leaving your kids at school back in Oz while similar education services are available in Singapore would be strongly viewed by the ATO as an indication of resident status. Yet if you take your family with you as in the above example, this by no means ensures non-resident status without which living costs will be crippling.

Hope you are still following this thread Hugh. Reiterating previous posts..get independent expert advice and seek a private ruling. Pass the info around. If QF don’t seek, obtain and give clear direction to staff well prior postings then they are yet again abrogating their employer responsibilities. Not holding my breath especially on the 'well prior' part,
LD
Having just played with the ATO's residency calculator one interesting outcome was that without altering any other entries, family not accompanying will give resident status. One SO I know was planning on leaving his wife behind to complete her tertiary studies but to do so will be very expensive.

OhSpareMe

26th Mar 2006, 05:20

You could of course remain a "Resident for Tax Purposes" whilst engaging on "Continuous Foreign Service" and have your "Foreign Employment Income" exempted from Australian Tax.

Here is the link for those interested in doing some research

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/28908.htm

And seeing as though we are in the business of selectively quoting, I thought I might include this from Tax Ruling IT2650

(it can be found just above the 'airline employee' example.)

35. An engineer was sent by his Australian employer to the Philippines on a project assignment for a minimum period of 3 to 4 years and he decided to relocate his family in the Philippines. In fact, the assignment was terminated after 2 years and the taxpayer returned to Australia. It was always his intention to return to Australia at the completion of the project. He retained his Australian home and rented it out. On arriving in the Philippines, the taxpayer and his family initially resided for short periods at a hotel and in an apartment. Later, he sub-leased a house which the family occupied until their return to Australia. Having regard to the nature and quality of his use of the place of abode in the Philippines, the taxpayer was considered to have established a permanent place of abode outside Australia (Case R92 84 ATC 615; Case 145 27 CTBR(NS) 1131).
Result : non-resident.

404 Titan

26th Mar 2006, 07:41

Don’t be misled by the nature of the employment overseas. It’s irrelevant. Want is relevant is being able to prove where your permanent place of abode is and how you arrange your affairs while you were away. These individual cases are only giving you a broad overview of the circumstances of the individual. You really need to get hold of the entire transcript of the case before using it because the detail is in the fine print.

Hugh Gorgen

26th Mar 2006, 22:03

Guys,

I sincerely appreciate the assistance. Certainly a lot to prepare before departure.
However, my question is this :
The Qantas Singapore basing time-line is now well behind schedule. What is causing Qantas to delay the release of the basing details? Speculation suggests that it is tax related. If non-resident status is a non - issue then why delay the basing?

How does the union feel about the situation ?

Hugh

Datum

27th Mar 2006, 00:18

Hugh Gorgen,

AIPA have proposed an information day on 5 Apr 2006. The company has also been invited to attend and/or present. I imagine this meeting will be well attended....

The company is having a number of problems, least of which revolves around rostering Singapore based crews in accordance with the original Letter of Agreement...

However, the latest and in some ways the most disturbing news I have heard is that Qantas are considering NOT paying Second Officers their Superannuation entitlement whilst in Singapore! Hopefully only a rumour... I trust many will want clarification of this particular issue on 5 Apr....

It is amusing to think that the company actually think they can sign people up on a contract of employment before the conditions of that contract have been developed, formalised and/or communicated!

If it ended up in the courts - I think lawyers would have a field day!

OhSpareMe

27th Mar 2006, 01:00

I heard the Company was also going to execute your first born.
Not paying Super? I would like to see them get away with that. Tell me Datum from whom you heard that little gem. If it is such an issue (which it isn't) then why not just re-credit your super account upon your return? The only problem I can see with Superannuation is that you will not have any option to Salary Sacrifice extra contributions because you will not have a Taxable Salary (as such) from which to make said contributions.
Hugh Gorgen. I feel that the delay in establishing the basing is more likely due to 'administration' reasons rather than anything sinister. If you end up going to the 5 April briefing I would be keen to hear what was offered (I will be O/S on the day)

Bolty McBolt

29th Mar 2006, 05:16

To get back on track of this thread because we can all pontificate about whether or not how each individual will be taxed but in the end QF will offer the job with certain conditions of employment and you may choose to accept these conditions or not.
The bottom line will be Do you want the Job or not which is a sad indictment but a reality all the same.

Does any body have an idea how much these SOs will be paid in AUD $ ?
How many hours flying per month?
Would some care to post the LOA that "ohspareme" has mentioned in previous posts...

Transition Layer

29th Mar 2006, 06:11

Bolty,

Don't know if posting the entire LOA here is entirely appropriate, but someone might do it.

As for your other questions, pay will be in $AUD in accordance with the current EBA and rates of pay. Given that the divisor in SIN is forecast to be 180hrs and the fact that every flight will have some amount of overtime, S/Os could earn a little more than they do at present (unless of course they are pacific barons). A 2yr S/O for example would probably be earning $110,000 AUD. (working out a QF pilots pay is like asking how long is a piece of string though!)

180hr divisors mean roughly 90hrs duty a month, so 75-80 hrs stick/month would be about it.

TL

Keg

29th Mar 2006, 06:30

180hr divisors mean roughly 90hrs duty a month, so 75-80 hrs stick/month would be about it.
TL

Mostly all at night and 50% of it will be 'back of the clock' with a major time zone change required. It won't be all easy street! :eek: :ok:

In actuality, it's going to be a relatively 'easy' time in terms of time off at 'home' in Singapore. 25ish stick hours per trip to London means max four trips per month- possibly three to LHR and one to FRA. At three to four days a trip means decent time off at home. Looking at about 200 o/t hours per annum instead of the normal 100! That'll make a difference!

Transition Layer

29th Mar 2006, 06:40

Keg,

At three to four days a trip means decent time off at home.

Don't forget, there's also going to be 9 day 'shuttles' SIN/LHR/BKK/LHR/SIN and SIN/LHR/HKG/LHR/SIN. Probably means even more time off, at 'home' or on the golf courses on Bintan Island.

TL

GetOffMyBack

30th Mar 2006, 03:15

When eventually the singapore base is up and running will Singapore flights to/from Australia operate two crew?

Bolty McBolt

30th Mar 2006, 10:12

Ok thanks to TL the figures look like this…

110,000 = 126,500 SGD @ $1.15

Tax = -$ 18,270 SGD

Net = 108, 230 SGD

Net per Month $9,000 SGD plus a few bucks

Expenses per month.

Elec/gas $300
Taxi $800
Rent $1500 - $2200
Food $600
Alcohol $400 - $2000
Health insur $300
Phone
(mob + land) $100

Internet/tv $100

Min per Month $4100
Max per Month $6400 ++

Something to note the $110 K AUD gross is made up of allowances some of which will be spent in LHR keeping yourself fed and watered.

If you have primary school kids and younger add 20 K SGD per year ($1660 pm) for an expat school but there are cheaper alternatives.

Some rough figures that have been rounded up to the nearest hundred but they are sourced from people whom live there..:}

NB. Most apartment leases are 2 years with penalty of paying a minimum of 14 months rent if you break within the first year and 2 months rent if you break in the second year so if you plan on sharing and splitting the rent with someone you had better be sure they are a good mate.

WalkintheClouds

30th Mar 2006, 11:35

When eventually the singapore base is up and running will Singapore flights to/from Australia operate two crew?

I heard that there will be there pilots on board, one captain, one first officer and one S/O. QF is trying to cut their cost by doing this and the whole singapore basing thing:oh:

Hugh Gorgen

7th Apr 2006, 06:53

Any additional news from the AIPA meeting on the 5th ???

Bolty McBolt

8th Apr 2006, 07:01

I heard a rumour or two.

The reason the Singapore basing isn't up and running is because the people who came up with the idea and showed how the savings can be made by placing SOs Singa have not organised anything other than the basic concept.

This is probably why all the questions posted in this thread cannot be answered. eg Super, country of tax etc

This is partly due to the employment "models" put forward so far are either not as economically viable as first thought or ithe deal that does not fit the agreement.

And why would the Singapore ministry of manpower offer work permits for foreign workers to work for a foreign airline in direct competion with SQ !!
It would be within Singapores right to insist these jobs be offered locally first before bringing in foreign nationals to fill positions or the fact that QF gets 3 million savings on routes that it competes directly with SQ may be a stumbling block.

GetOffMyBack

12th May 2006, 02:29

Its all gone quiet on the singapore front, any news when or if the base is going to be up and running??

Johhny Utah

12th May 2006, 06:59

The latest word is that those who had the singapore basing on their letter of appointment have been told by the union that the basing will not be going ahead (via text message) in the last few days.

However, there appear to be scant few details between here/Qrewroom/AIPA Website...:confused:

Hugh Gorgen

12th May 2006, 07:45

Basing is "indefinatey delayed".
Thanks to AIPA for their efforts.

WalkintheClouds

19th May 2006, 12:36

Anymore updates, mate! :confused:

QFinsider

19th May 2006, 13:17

The base is dead...The mug in charge at the aslyum (Flight Operations) temp manager and CP, will not say much publicly...It is a huge backdown, but the base is dead.
thank you AIPA, the junior S/O's I fly with are very grateful:E

GetOffMyBack

19th May 2006, 13:37

Why hasn't the company announced anything? What are they waiting for?:ugh:

QFinsider

19th May 2006, 13:43

They are simply waiting for a day where their disasterous decision making processses will not mean that this basing gets another headline, adding to the pattern protection debarcle, J* Asia, AO etc etc in the slow downward spiral of a once great icon in the hands of inept managment...That and a huge ego:E

OCCR

30th May 2006, 09:05

Singapore Base

The setup of the Flight Operations Singapore base for B744 S/Os is a key deliverable in the Flight Operations Business Plan. The SIN basing will provide a number of benefits for both Flight Crew and the Company. The benefits range from savings for the Company through greater pattern planning efficiencies and reduced deadheading costs to an exciting opportunity for crew to live and work overseas for a set period of time.

The SIN intranet site will be a progressively developed information source, designed to provide you with the latest known information on the new SIN base. The intranet site will provide you with everything you need to know about living and working in Singapore.

Providing answers to your questions is critical in making your decision to go to Singapore and you will notice the intranet site allows you to send questions directly to the Project Team.

20/03/06
There has been a good deal of interest in the Singapore Base for B744 Second Officers with lots of questions being asked via the website.
As you would have noticed, the proposed timeline has slipped slightly which is due to some of the complexities with the setup of a new international base. We are working to ensure that the base opening is productive and effective for both the company and Second Officers and a confirmed timeline will be available shortly.

One thing we can confirm is the base location has been identified with office and crew room designs drawn up. The essential technology for the base has also been ordered. The S/O crew room facilities include:- security swipe access for S/O’s, PC’s, ports for laptops, printer, lounges, tea, coffee and filtered water facilities, individual pigeon holes, coat racks, hand luggage storage and a fulltime person will be assigned to the base.

We thank you for your continued interest and request that you continue to send in your questions via the “Submit a Question” option below. Below is an update to the Q&A’s received.

BASE OPENS 12 JUNE 2006.

Boys I thought you lot would have been able to stick it to the company, However welcome to our club, We in cabin crew started with one base and now look at what we have
BKK AKL CNS LHR and more to come

oh I forgot it on the QF website. if you want more infor I will post it

DirectAnywhere

30th May 2006, 09:55

Ummmm...don't think so!!

This is/was a proposed timeline and considering expressions of interest (that were supposed to close in March) haven't even been offered yet I would suggest that timeline of June 12 would have blown out somewhat.

Note that the FAQs were last updated 14th March.

Rumours would suggest there are serious problems with the proposed basing that mean it's not likely to go ahead. QANTAS has hardly endeared itself to SQ and its majority owner recently.

OCCR

30th May 2006, 10:02

you could be right Direct, but It flashed on my screen when I logged on!
its under JB flight crew annual briefing!

QFinsider

30th May 2006, 10:28

Whilst I repsect the opinion of our cabin crew colleagues, the website bears no relevance to what is actually occuring. The base is not going to go ahead. :E

WalkintheClouds

7th Jun 2006, 14:08

Its great to hear that the basing has dead after all :) . Have all the S/Os been told this or they are still uninformed?????? Hope everybody can get back to their normal life...

Keg

7th Jun 2006, 23:55

As at two days ago, at least two of the S/Os are uninformed.

I don't think the base is dead (yet). Certainly the company line is that it will still go ahead, they just don't have the critical mass of S/Os who can be assigned yet (110 I think). They're eighty short and that means we have another year or so of recruiting to do before they'll have the numbers.

Of course, then they need to build the patterns that make the divisor. One report on that was that they couldn't get the numbers to fit within the award. Of course, the company wanted some flexibility from AIPA- who had previously asked for some flexibility in another matter on the basing and had been told that they had signed the deal and the flexibility wasn't available. No suprise as to AIPA's subsequent response to the request from the company for flexibility! :E

Flexibility cuts both ways! :rolleyes: