QANTAS Singapore Basing

[404 Titan]

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]

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? 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]

WHAT IS AIPA DOING?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dropt McGutz

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]

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

[Bazzamundi]

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]

Thanks Bazza. That makes things clearer.

[WalkintheClouds]

Originally Posted by Bazzamundi

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.

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

[Bazzamundi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/script...cy_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]

OK - lets all imagine we are Bronwyn...........
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co....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]

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]

OhSpareMe

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]

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]

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]

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