Australian Taxation Law: Does a significant reduction in a part-time employee’s working hours and remuneration constitute “genuine redundancy” under Australian tax legislation for tax-free payment eligibility?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Baya Casal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 87, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Federal Court of Australia
Presiding Judge: McEvoy J
Cause of Action: Appeal from an objection decision regarding the tax classification of an employment termination payment.
Judgment Date: 18 February 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Taxation – Genuine Redundancy Payment
Keyword 3: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s 83-175(1)
Keyword 4: Reduction in Hours and Remuneration
Keyword 5: Federal Court of Australia – Appeal from Objection Decision
Keyword 6: Interpretation of “Position is Genuinely Redundant”

Background:

This case involves an appeal by Ms Florencia Baya Casal (the Applicant) against a decision by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (the Respondent) regarding the tax treatment of a payment she received from her employer, Ivanhoe Grammar School. Following a restructure of the school’s Early Learning Centre (ELC), the Applicant’s part-time position as an ELC assistant was terminated. She was offered new roles with reduced hours and changed working days, which she declined, opting for a redundancy payment. The school treated this payment as an employment termination payment (ETP) for tax purposes, rather than a genuine redundancy payment. The Applicant sought a private ruling that her payment should be treated as a genuine redundancy payment, which the Respondent disallowed, confirming this in an objection decision. The core of the dispute lies in whether the Applicant’s position became “genuinely redundant” in the eyes of the law, a classification that significantly impacts its taxability.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal question in this appeal is whether the Applicant’s position was “genuinely redundant” within the meaning of section 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA97).
The Applicant claims that her position was genuinely redundant due to the significant changes in hours, remuneration, and working days offered in the new roles, making the payment tax-free.
The Respondent maintains that the Applicant’s position was not genuinely redundant because the underlying functions, duties, and responsibilities still existed, and she could have performed a similar role, thus classifying the payment as a taxable ETP.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The events leading to this litigation commenced on or around 9 December 2021, when Ms Florencia Baya Casal, the Applicant, received a payment of AUD $15,326.96 from her employer, Ivanhoe Grammar School. This payment marked the termination of her employment as an early learning centre assistant, a role she had held since 28 January 2014, working on a part-time basis of 34.56 hours per week (equivalent to a 0.92 Full-Time Equivalent, or FTE).

The catalyst for this change was a remodelling of the school’s Early Learning Centre (ELC) structure, initiated on 5 October 2021. The school notified the Applicant that the restructure would result in a decrease in part-time hours and changes to working days for ELC positions. Crucially, while the “skills and duties for the role” were deemed similar, the operational requirements of the ELC were changing. The school proposed three new ELC roles, for instance, Role 1 involved 28.5 hours over four days a week.

The Applicant was presented with a choice: either to be redeployed into one of the remodelled ELC roles or to accept redundancy. The proposed changes to her working days and the reduction in hours associated with the new roles were not acceptable to her. Consequently, she chose to accept the redundancy. The school subsequently provided her with 13 weeks’ pay in compensation for her termination of employment.

The school’s initial classification of this payment was as an employment termination payment (ETP), a category that typically carries a less favourable tax treatment than a genuine redundancy payment. The Applicant, questioning this classification, sought clarification from her employer. The school, however, maintained its position, stating that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) differentiates between “genuine” (tax-free) and “non-genuine” (taxable) redundancy payments. Their reasoning was that if the duties of the departing employee are still required to be performed by another employee, the redundancy is considered “non-genuine” and taxed as an ETP.

Dissatisfied with this explanation and the tax implications, the Applicant lodged a private ruling application with the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation on 21 December 2021, seeking confirmation that her payment should be treated as a genuine redundancy payment. The Respondent subsequently issued a private ruling on 26 April 2022, confirming the payment as an ETP. The Applicant then formally objected to this private ruling on 10 June 2022, leading to the Objection Decision on 1 December 2022, which disallowed her objection and upheld the original ruling. This sequence of events culminated in the Applicant’s appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, initiating the present litigation to determine the legal character of her termination payment.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• The 5 October 2021 Letter: This letter, issued by Ivanhoe Grammar School, notified the Applicant of the impending ELC restructure. It indicated that her “part time hours [were] to decrease and working days changed”. Critically, an attachment to this letter detailed the proposed new ELC co-educator positions (Role 1, Role 2, Role 3), specifying reduced weekly hours (e.g., from 34.56 to 28.5 or 21.5 hours) and the corresponding annualised salaries. The Applicant argued that this document, which the Court can use to construe and better understand the scheme’s facts, clearly demonstrates a material reduction in her working hours and, by obvious inference, her remuneration, in any of the offered roles.
• The 9 December 2021 Payslip: This document provided a clear record of the Applicant’s pre-restructure annual salary (AUD $50,698.88 for 0.92 FTE hours). The Applicant submitted that this payslip, when compared with the remuneration figures for the new roles outlined in the 5 October 2021 letter, definitively showed a reduction of approximately 20% to 40% in her annual salary. She contended this was a non-controversial factual matter directly inferable from the evidence, demonstrating a material change to her position.
• Legal Precedents under Fair Work Legislation: The Applicant cited a series of cases from the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Circuit Court, and this Court (e.g., Hryhorec v Mobility Plus, Irvine v Perspective Recruitment Pty Ltd, Broadlex Services Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union, Fair Work Ombudsman v F L Press Pty Ltd). These cases, she argued, established a consistent industrial meaning of “redundancy” where a material reduction in hours, remuneration, or significant changes to working days mean that an employee’s original position no longer exists. She asserted that the income tax meaning of “redundancy” should align with this industrial meaning.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Private Ruling and Objection Decision: The core evidence for the Respondent was its own Private Ruling (26 April 2022) and the subsequent Objection Decision (1 December 2022), which both concluded that the Applicant’s payment was an ETP, not a genuine redundancy payment. These decisions were based on the understanding that if the duties, functions, and responsibilities of the departing employee are still required to be performed by another employee, the redundancy is not “genuine”.
• “Skills and Duties are Similar” from Scheme Facts: The Respondent emphasised the scheme’s factual statement that the “skills and duties for the role are similar” (scheme [3] in private ruling, [36] in objection decision). This, they argued, indicated that the fundamental work required in the ELC had not ceased to exist.
• No Position Ceased to Exist: The Respondent contended that a “genuine redundancy” only arises when an employee’s position ceases to exist, not merely when their services cannot be effectively used or when an employer no longer wants a job to be performed by a particular person. They argued that the new ELC roles, though changed, meant the underlying need for ELC assistants performing similar duties persisted.
• No Material Reduction in Remuneration (disputed): The Respondent disputed the Applicant’s contention of a material reduction in remuneration as a directly inferable fact from the scheme. They argued that the scheme itself (private ruling and objection decision) did not explicitly state the remuneration for the new roles or the extent of any reduction. They positioned the 5 October 2021 letter and the payslip as external documents not directly part of the defined “scheme” for the appeal’s purposes, or at least requiring cautious interpretation.
• Availability of Other Roles (from 5 October 2021 letter): The Respondent sought to introduce the point from the 5 October 2021 letter that “Other roles available for your redeployment are any other suitable role advertised on the School’s Careers page on our website.” This, they argued, could infer that alternative suitable roles existed beyond the three ELC positions, suggesting no genuine redundancy.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Scope of Review: Can the Court infer facts (specifically, material reduction in remuneration) from documents referred to in, or underlying, the scheme description for the private ruling, even if not explicitly stated in the formal scheme facts?
2. Meaning of “Genuinely Redundant”: Does “position is genuinely redundant” under ITAA97 s 83-175(1) require the complete cessation of all duties associated with a role, or does a material reduction in working hours, remuneration, and changes to working days mean the original “job” or “position” no longer exists?
3. Relevance of Industrial Relations Cases: To what extent are precedents from the Fair Work jurisdiction, defining “redundancy” in an employment context, applicable and persuasive in interpreting “genuine redundancy” for taxation purposes?
4. Materiality of Changes: Was the reduction in hours (up to 40%) and corresponding remuneration (up to 40%), along with changed working days, sufficiently “material” to render the Applicant’s original position genuinely redundant?
5. Alternative Roles: Does the mere mention of other potential roles on the school’s website, without specific details about their suitability or the Applicant’s eligibility, negate a finding of genuine redundancy for her specific pre-restructure position?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In Australian litigation, the Affidavit serves as a critical legal document where parties present their factual narratives, supported by evidence, to the Court. In the present case, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the contents of specific affidavits, it references “documents provided with your private ruling application and those provided during the private ruling process” (paragraph 10). These would undoubtedly contain the Applicant’s sworn statements of fact and supporting material, forming the basis of the “scheme” as presented to the Deputy Commissioner for the private ruling.

The Applicant’s legal strategy, as evidenced by the Court’s analysis, involved meticulously constructing a factual matrix that highlighted the significant alterations to her employment conditions. This would have included her sworn testimony detailing:
* Her initial employment conditions: 34.56 hours per week, specific working days, and a particular annual salary.
* The specifics of the restructure notification: The communication from Ivanhoe Grammar School on 5 October 2021, detailing the proposed new ELC roles.
* The nature of the new roles: How the proposed roles involved fewer hours, different working days, and, by her inference, reduced remuneration. Her affidavit would have explicitly stated these numerical differences.
* Her decision to decline the new roles: Her reasons for deeming the new roles unacceptable due to these changes, leading to her opting for redundancy.
* The payment received: Confirmation of the AUD $15,326.96 payment and the school’s initial classification as an ETP.

The Respondent’s statements, likely conveyed through internal departmental documents forming part of the objection review process, would have focused on:
* The “similarity” of skills and duties: Emphasising that the fundamental tasks of an ELC assistant were still required, albeit reorganised.
* The non-cessation of the “job”: Arguing that the underlying work functions had not disappeared, but were merely reallocated.
* The school’s rationale: The restructure’s purpose was reorganisation, not necessarily to reduce the number of employees performing ELC assistant duties.
* Availability of other positions: Pointing to the general statement in the 5 October 2021 letter about other roles on the school’s website.

Strategic Intent:
The Judge’s procedural directions and ultimate reliance on the “facts of the scheme” (as understood through construction and limited inference) underscore the strategic importance of meticulously defining the factual parameters at the outset of any administrative review process. The Court’s strict adherence to the defined “scheme” meant that any additional facts or interpretations not clearly presented and accepted during the ruling or objection stage faced significant hurdles. The strategic intent behind the Judge’s approach was to maintain the integrity of the administrative review framework, ensuring that the Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision on the specific factual basis presented to the Commissioner, rather than undertaking a fresh factual investigation. This aims to prevent parties from introducing new factual arguments on appeal that were not properly considered by the primary decision-maker. The ongoing dispute about what facts could be inferred or legitimately considered highlights the critical importance of careful and comprehensive factual articulation in initial applications and objections.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

This chapter outlines the final orders made by the Federal Court of Australia in this appeal, rather than pre-final hearing procedural arrangements, as the provided document is the final judgment.

Orders Made by McEvoy J on 18 February 2025:

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed.

These orders reflect the Court’s determination that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision regarding the tax treatment of the Applicant’s payment was incorrect, siding with the Applicant’s contention that her position was genuinely redundant. The order for costs against the Respondent signifies that the Applicant was the successful party in this appeal.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing before McEvoy J was not a re-hearing of the evidence, but rather an appeal on a question of law arising from the Respondent’s Objection Decision. The “showdown” in this context was primarily one of legal interpretation and the permissible scope of factual inference from the “scheme” presented to the Commissioner. Counsel for both the Applicant and the Respondent presented arguments focusing on how the term “genuinely redundant” under the ITAA97 should be understood and applied to the established facts.

The Applicant’s counsel meticulously argued that the undisputed facts within the scheme, coupled with reasonable and obvious inferences, demonstrated a material change to the Applicant’s job that effectively rendered her original “position” redundant. The Respondent’s counsel countered by emphasising the “similarity” of duties in the new roles and the potential for redeployment, suggesting the underlying “job” still existed.

Core Evidence Confrontation:

The central confrontation revolved around:
* The 5 October 2021 Letter: The Applicant argued this letter provided critical context, detailing the specific reductions in hours and corresponding remuneration for the new roles, thereby supporting the “material reduction” argument. The Respondent, while acknowledging the letter was considered in the objection, resisted its use to infer additional facts not explicitly stated in the formal “scheme” presented to the Commissioner.
* The 9 December 2021 Payslip: This document provided hard figures for the Applicant’s pre-restructure salary. The Applicant used it to quantitatively demonstrate the significant reduction in earnings in the proposed new roles (20-40%). The Respondent took a neutral stance, leaving it to the Court to decide if such inferences were permissible.
* Industrial Relations Principles: A significant part of the debate centred on the applicability of redundancy principles developed under Fair Work legislation to taxation law. The Applicant argued for alignment, presenting cases where material changes to hours or terms were deemed redundancy. The Respondent urged caution, asserting the need for a distinct tax law interpretation, although acknowledged the historical reliance of tax cases on industrial precedents for the core concept of redundancy.

Judicial Reasoning:

Justice McEvoy engaged in a careful analysis of the legal principles governing appeals from private rulings and objection decisions, particularly concerning the Court’s ability to draw inferences or construe facts beyond the explicitly stated “scheme.” His Honour ultimately determined that a material reduction in working hours and remuneration constitutes a fundamental change to an employment “position” leading to genuine redundancy.

The Court’s reasoning was articulated in key passages, demonstrating how the facts drove the result and how the Judge formed his decision based on the objective chain of evidence and statutory provisions. For example, regarding the interpretation of factual inferences:

“I accept, as the applicant submits, that as a matter of common sense and human experience there is an obvious inference to be drawn from that fact that her renumeration in such a role would also be reduced: see Eichmann (2020) at [16]; Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 at [82] (Allsop CJ, Besanko and O’Callaghan JJ). There is no competing inference able to be drawn, and drawing the inference that there was to be a material reduction in the applicant’s remuneration does not contradict any of the existing ruled facts: Eichmann (2020) at [16].”

This extract highlights the Court’s willingness to draw obvious inferences from the stated facts, such as a reduction in hours necessarily implying a reduction in remuneration, especially when no competing inference exists and it does not contradict other established facts. This was a critical step in establishing the materiality of the change to the Applicant’s position.

Furthermore, on the core question of whether a reduction in hours means redundancy, the Court referred to established industrial relations principles:

“Insofar as the respondent advances various scenarios amounting to a submission that a ‘position,’ or a ‘job,’ or the ‘functions, duties, and responsibilities’ of that position or job can only mean the tasks that an employee is performing at work, even if on different days, at different times, for fewer hours, and for less pay – the ‘position’ is the same. I do not accept that this can be so. As the applicant submits, such a submission is inconsistent with authority, and is an inapt approach to the words ‘functions, duties, and responsibilities’, even assuming that they were a substitute for the statutory language of ‘position’. I accept that the concepts of ‘duties’ and ‘responsibilities’ are wide enough to incorporate days and hours of work.”

This judicial observation directly refutes the Respondent’s narrow interpretation, affirming that “duties” and “responsibilities” are broad enough to encompass structural aspects like working hours and days. The Court found that changes to these fundamental elements signify that the original position no longer exists, establishing genuine redundancy.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Federal Court of Australia, presided over by McEvoy J, delivered its final judgment on 18 February 2025.

The Court Orders That:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed.

This judgment means that the Court overturned the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation’s decision, finding that the Applicant’s position was, in fact, genuinely redundant for taxation purposes. Consequently, the Applicant’s payment should be eligible for the more favourable tax treatment associated with genuine redundancy payments. The award of costs to the Applicant indicates her success in the litigation.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case offers significant jurisprudential value in clarifying the interpretation of “genuine redundancy” under Australian taxation law, particularly where employment restructures lead to offers of reduced hours and remuneration. It reinforces the principle that the meaning of “redundancy” in taxation contexts is closely aligned with, and draws heavily from, its established meaning in industrial relations law. This alignment is crucial for practitioners and taxpayers alike, as it suggests a consistent approach across different legal domains. The judgment’s nuanced approach to factual inference – allowing obvious inferences from the scheme while prohibiting new fact-finding – provides important guidance on the scope of judicial review in administrative appeals, especially concerning private rulings. It highlights that the “position” or “job” encompasses more than just a list of tasks, extending to the fundamental conditions of employment such as hours and remuneration.

Judgment Points:

An uncommon aspect of this ruling is the Court’s explicit rejection of the Respondent’s argument that a 20% to 40% reduction in hours and remuneration is merely “modest.” His Honour found this submission “untenable” in circumstances where an employee is paid by the hour. This direct and strong judicial comment provides a clear benchmark for what constitutes a “material” change in employment conditions, offering significant clarity for future cases involving similar disputes. The Court’s assertion that remuneration is an “essential element of an employment contract” firmly grounds this interpretation in fundamental contractual principles.

Legal Basis:

The legal foundation for the Court’s decision rests primarily on Section 83-175(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), which defines a “genuine redundancy payment” as one received by an employee dismissed because their position is “genuinely redundant.” The Court’s interpretation of “genuinely redundant” was informed by industrial law principles, as established through cases like Adelaide Milk Supply Cooperative Ltd and Short v F W Hercus Pty Ltd. These cases define redundancy as occurring when an employer no longer desires for a “job” (a collection of functions, duties, and responsibilities) to be performed by anyone.

Evidence Chain:

The evidence chain was crucial in establishing the materiality of the changes to the Applicant’s position.
* The 5 October 2021 Letter: This letter communicated the ELC restructure, explicitly stating that the Applicant’s “part time hours [were] to decrease and working days changed.” Critically, its attachment detailed the new roles, showing a reduction in hours (e.g., from 34.56 to 28.5 or 21.5 hours per week). The Court inferred from this that a reduction in hours inherently meant a reduction in remuneration.
* The 9 December 2021 Payslip: This document unequivocally confirmed the Applicant’s pre-restructure annual salary (AUD $50,698.88 for 0.92 FTE). When directly compared with the proposed salaries in the 5 October 2021 letter (AUD $40,636 or AUD $30,644), it provided clear, incontrovertible evidence of a 20-40% reduction in remuneration.
The Court determined that these documents, properly construed, established that the alternative positions offered to the Applicant involved a “material reduction” in both hours and remuneration, fundamentally altering the “position” she previously held.

Judicial Original Quotation:

On the central point of what constitutes “genuine redundancy” in the context of changed employment conditions, Justice McEvoy articulated the Court’s position by drawing on established legal understanding, stating:

“It follows therefore that in the facts which present in the circumstances of this case, the reduction in hours which has occurred means that the applicant’s position has become genuinely redundant. Although the respondent contends that for the most part the applicant’s reliance on cases involving the Fair Work legislation is misplaced, I do not accept this submission for following reasons: … The income tax meaning of ‘redundancy’ is, for these purposes, the industrial meaning. … It is not necessary, for the applicant to succeed, to point to a statement in Dibb or Weeks expressly to the effect that a change in working days, or hours, will (if material) mean that a former position is redundant. … I accept that Dibb and Weeks should be understood as establishing general principles which, properly analysed and applied, are consistent with the applicant’s case. I will turn shortly to why I accept the applicant’s submission that a material reduction in hours means that there is a redundancy.”

This quotation is determinative because it explicitly states that a material reduction in hours (and by extension, remuneration) leads to a position becoming genuinely redundant. It establishes the critical link between industrial relations principles and taxation law’s interpretation of redundancy, and rejects the Respondent’s attempt to delineate a different, narrower meaning for tax purposes. It underscores that the “job” or “position” as understood in law includes the fundamental terms and conditions of employment, such as hours and pay.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Respondent’s case failed primarily due to a narrow interpretation of “genuinely redundant” and an overly restrictive view of the factual matrix available to the Court on appeal.
1. Narrow Definition of “Position”: The Respondent incorrectly assumed that “genuinely redundant” only applies if all duties associated with a job cease to exist entirely. The Court, drawing on industrial law, clarified that a “position” encompasses hours and remuneration. A material change to these elements means the original position no longer exists.
2. Restrictive Approach to Facts: The Respondent adopted an “air of unreality” by resisting the inference of a material reduction in remuneration, despite clear evidence of reduced hours in the proposed new roles. Their argument that external documents (like the 5 October 2021 letter and payslip) could not inform the “scheme” was largely rejected by the Court, which found that these documents could be used to construe and better understand the stated facts through obvious inferences.
3. Misplaced Emphasis on “Similar Duties”: While the new roles might involve “similar skills and duties,” the Court determined that the quantitative changes to hours and pay fundamentally altered the “position” itself, rendering the original position redundant, irrespective of lingering tasks.
4. Failure to Distinguish Precedents: The Respondent failed to convincingly distinguish the industrial cases, which the Court found directly applicable to the core concept of redundancy. The argument for “caution” in applying these cases was deemed insufficient in the absence of fundamental differences in the definition of “redundancy” between the two statutory contexts.

Implications

1. Protect Your Pay Packet: If your job’s hours or pay are significantly cut during a restructure, know that this can legally mean your original role is “redundant.” Don’t automatically accept a lesser offer; exploring your redundancy entitlements could be crucial for your financial future.
2. Documentation is Power: Keep detailed records of your original employment contract, any restructure proposals, payslips, and all communications. This paperwork forms the “facts” the Court considers, and clear documentation can be your strongest ally in defending your rights.
3. “Redundancy” Isn’t Just About Job Loss: This case clarifies that redundancy isn’t only when your entire role disappears. A substantial change to core terms like hours and pay can legally redefine your position out of existence, triggering genuine redundancy entitlements.
4. Know Your Rights, Especially Tax: The tax implications of termination payments are complex but vital. Understanding if your payment qualifies as a “genuine redundancy payment” (often tax-free up to a certain amount) rather than a taxable “employment termination payment” can save you significant money.
5. Legal Principles Often Align: This judgment shows that how “redundancy” is understood in workplace law often translates directly to tax law. Don’t be deterred if one area of law seems to dismiss your claim; broader legal principles might support your case.

Q&A Session

Q1: What exactly does “genuinely redundant” mean for an employee?
A1: “Genuinely redundant” means that your employer no longer requires the job you were doing to be performed by anyone, due to changes in their operational requirements. This case clarifies that this “job” or “position” isn’t just a list of tasks; it includes fundamental aspects like your working hours, days, and pay. So, if your hours or pay are significantly reduced, or your working days fundamentally change, your original “position” can be considered genuinely redundant even if some of the tasks still exist in a new, altered role.

Q2: My employer offered me a new role with fewer hours after a restructure, but I didn’t take it. Will my termination payment be taxed as a normal employment termination payment (ETP)?
A2: Not necessarily. Based on this judgment, if the new role offered involved a material reduction in your hours and corresponding remuneration (as was the case here with a 20-40% reduction), and/or significant changes to your working days, then your original position may be considered “genuinely redundant” even if you chose not to accept the altered role. In such circumstances, your termination payment might qualify for the more favourable tax treatment of a genuine redundancy payment, rather than a standard ETP. It is crucial to examine the specific details of the changes to determine if they are “material.”

Q3: Can the Court consider documents that weren’t part of the formal application to the ATO when reviewing a tax decision?
A3: This judgment clarifies that while the Court generally sticks to the “scheme” of facts presented to the Commissioner, it can consider certain additional documents. Specifically, if a document was referred to in the ruling or objection decision (even if not fully explained), and it helps the Court to construe or better understand the existing stated facts, or if it allows for obvious inferences to be drawn that don’t contradict other facts, then the Court may use it. This was crucial in this case, where letters detailing new work hours and a payslip showing the original salary helped the Court understand the material impact of the restructure.

---

Appendix: Core Practical Component Library

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
   Case Subtype: Employment and Workplace Disputes – Taxation of Redundancy Payments
   Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
   ③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)
   Core Test (Unfair Dismissal – Fair Work Act):

   • Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to capacity or conduct? (Section 387(a) Fair Work Act 2009). This typically refers to performance, skill, or disciplinary issues.
   • Was the person notified of that reason? (Section 387(b) Fair Work Act 2009). The employee must be made aware of the reason for their dismissal.
   • Was the person given an opportunity to respond? (Section 387(c) Fair Work Act 2009). This involves providing the employee a chance to present their side or respond to allegations.
   • Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable? (Section 387(d)-(h) Fair Work Act 2009). This is an overarching consideration, weighing factors such as the impact on the employee, the size of the employer’s enterprise, and whether a dedicated human resources management specialist was available.
   • (Specific to Redundancy): A dismissal is not unfair if it is a “case of genuine redundancy” (Section 385(d) Fair Work Act 2009). Section 389(1) defines a “genuine redundancy” as occurring if:
     • the employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; AND
     • the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement to consult about the redundancy.
   • Key interpretation from this case: “Job” or “position” under redundancy definitions (both tax and industrial law) encompasses fundamental terms like working hours and remuneration, not just tasks. A material reduction in these conditions implies the original job no longer exists.

   Core Test (General Protections):

   • Was adverse action taken against the employee? (Section 342 Fair Work Act 2009). This includes dismissal, injuring in employment, altering position to the employee’s prejudice, or discriminating.
   • Was the adverse action taken because the employee exercised a workplace right? (Section 340 Fair Work Act 2009). Workplace rights include making complaints, inquiries, or participating in industrial activities.
   • Reverse Onus of Proof: If adverse action is proven, the employer must prove that the action was not taken for a prohibited reason.

   Core Test (Sham Contracting):

   • Is the worker genuinely independent? Indicators include:
     • Control: Does the worker control how, when, and where the work is done?
     • Tools and Equipment: Does the worker supply their own tools and equipment?
     • Financial Risk: Does the worker bear the financial risk of rectifying defective work or losing money?
     • Ability to Delegate: Can the worker delegate or subcontract the work?
     • Invoicing: Does the worker invoice for their services?
     • Multiple Clients: Does the worker work for multiple clients?
   • Is the contract a disguised employment relationship? If the predominant purpose is to avoid employment entitlements, it may be a sham.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
   If dealing with [Employment / Administrative / Migration] matters:
   Procedural Fairness:
   • Did the decision-maker afford the party Natural Justice? Was there an opportunity to be heard (e.g., provide all relevant information, respond to adverse material)? Was there an apprehension of bias (e.g., decision-maker having a personal interest)? (This is the core of Judicial Review for administrative decisions, including private rulings and objection decisions, to ensure the decision was made according to law).
     Ancillary Claims:
   • If an Unfair Dismissal claim fails, can it be reframed as a General Protections claim involving a “reverse onus of proof”? This is relevant if an employee was dismissed for exercising a workplace right, such as making a complaint about a restructure or declining an offer that materially changed their terms. The employer would then bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was not due to the exercise of that right.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
   Regular Thresholds:
   • Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA53): Appeals against objection decisions (which confirm private rulings) must typically be lodged within 60 days of receiving the objection decision (Section 14ZZ(1) TAA53).
   • Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA): Unfair dismissal claims typically have a strict 21-day time limit from the effective date of dismissal. General Protections applications have a similar 21-day limit.

   Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

   • Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA53) Extensions: The Federal Court has discretion to grant an extension of time for lodging an appeal (Section 14ZZ(1) TAA53, referring to the Federal Court Rules). This discretion is exercised if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay and the applicant has a reasonably arguable case.
   • Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) Extensions: The Fair Work Commission may allow an application outside the 21-day period if there are “exceptional circumstances” (Section 394(3) FWA). This requires considering reasons for the delay, merits of the application, prejudice to the employer, and fairness.
     Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.
5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
   Citation Angle:
   It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving the interpretation of “genuine redundancy” under Australian taxation law, particularly when dealing with employment restructures involving reductions in hours, remuneration, or significant changes to working conditions.
   Citation Method:
   • As Positive Support: When your matter involves an employee whose working hours, days, or remuneration have been materially reduced due to an employer’s operational restructure, citing Baya Casal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 87 can strengthen your argument that the employee’s original position became genuinely redundant, making any associated payment eligible for tax-free treatment under ITAA97 s 83-175(1).
   • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case (or related tax/industrial redundancy cases), you should emphasize the uniqueness of the current matter by highlighting any lack of “materiality” in changes to hours/pay, the employee’s explicit agreement to altered terms, or clear evidence that the employer’s operational needs did not result in the original job ceasing to exist (e.g., the job was genuinely identical in all material respects, including hours and remuneration).

---

Conclusion
This comprehensive analysis of Baya Casal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 87 illuminates the nuanced interpretation of “genuine redundancy” in Australian taxation law. The Court’s decision to allow the appeal underscores that a material reduction in an employee’s working hours and remuneration, stemming from an employer’s restructure, constitutes a fundamental alteration to the employment “position,” thereby triggering genuine redundancy entitlements. By aligning the meaning of redundancy with established industrial law principles and permitting reasonable inferences from case facts, the judgment provides vital clarity for taxpayers and practitioners. It reinforces that legislative definitions, even across different statutory contexts, can converge on a consistent core meaning where the underlying policy and factual circumstances demand it. This case serves as a powerful reminder that the substance of employment changes, not just their form, dictates legal outcomes.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Baya Casal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 87), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.