High Court rules Uber must pay $81 million in NSW payroll tax
Australia’s top court found that payments to Uber drivers count as wages, triggering a payroll‑tax liability for the rideshare firm covering 2015‑2020.

Australia’s top court found that payments to Uber drivers count as wages, triggering a payroll‑tax liability for the rideshare firm covering 2015‑2020.
The story
The High Court of Australia dismissed Uber’s challenge to a New South Wales payroll‑tax assessment in a six‑to‑one decision, ruling that the money the company pays to drivers for completed rides is “deemed to be wages”. The judgment obliges Uber to pay more than $81 million in payroll tax for the period 2015 to 2020, relating specifically to drivers operating in NSW.
The court’s majority held that Uber’s business model gives it substantive control over fares before they are passed to drivers, allowing the company to deduct its service fee or alter the fare. Six of the seven judges agreed that the legal obligation for drivers to accept a rider once a request is accepted creates an employer‑employee relationship for tax purposes. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.
A closer look
Transport Workers’ Union national secretary Michael Kaine said the ruling demonstrates that “tech giants have spent years trying to convince governments that laws don’t apply to them”. He added that the judgment is a “critical reality check” for companies that seek to avoid obligations under Australian law. The union linked the case to a recent Fair Work Commission decision on minimum pay for food‑delivery workers and to a 2024 class‑action settlement in Victoria where Uber agreed to pay $271.8 million to taxi drivers.
The NSW government highlighted payroll tax as a key revenue source for essential services, noting that only about one in 20 companies meet the threshold for the tax. Legal commentator Celeste Black suggested the ruling could influence payroll‑tax obligations for other gig‑economy firms across Australia. Uber has indicated it will lobby for legislative change following the judgment.
Read the source reports and compare their framing:


