SoClean v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

2026/00134422

TAX – the appellant conducts a commercial cleaning business with most of its clients being shopping centre operators in the Sydney region – the appellant entered into written contracts with those clients for the provision of cleaning services – the appellant provided “day-to-day” cleaning services performed by its own employees including tasks such as mopping, vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, wiping surfaces up to two metres high, emptying bins, replenishing consumables – the appellant also supplied “specialised” cleaning services performed by subcontractors including tasks such as deep cleaning of toilets, wiping surfaces above two metres high, stripping and polishing floors, carpet shampooing and pressure cleaning – during the financial years ending 30 June 2019 to ending 30 June 2023, the appellant made payments totalling around $30 million to subcontractors in respect of the supply of “specialised” cleaning services to its clients – on 10 July 2023, the respondent issued tax assessments in respect of those payments – the respondent treated the payments as taxable wages pursuant to Pt 3, Div 8 of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) – the total amount due was assessed at $1,582,881.73, which included a principal tax liability plus the market rate of interest and a 25% penalty tax – the appellant applied for a review of those assessments pursuant to s 97 of the Tax Administration Act 1996 (NSW) on the basis that the amounts paid under the “specialised” cleaning contracts were not taxable wages under Pt 3, Div 8 of the Payroll Tax Act, that the respondent had not made the assessments in accordance with Revenue NSW Ruling PTA 027, and that the determination of the 25% penalty and interest should be remitted – the primary judge found that the respondent had correctly applied Pt 3, Div 8 of the Payroll Tax Act, the respondent did not make the assessments contrary to Ruling PTA 027, and that the matter should not be remitted on the issues of penalty and interest – whether the primary judge erred in interpreting and applying Pt 3, Div 8 of the Payroll Tax Act and in making certain factual findings, misconstrued or failed to consider certain evidence, misapplied the “in and for” test in Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Integrated Trolley Management Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 302, and misconstrued the onus of proof.

SoClean Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWSC 161