Key Highlights

  • The High Court dismissed Uber's appeal in full on 4 November 2026.
  • Fares passed on to drivers are deemed wages under NSW Payroll Tax contractor rules.
  • Revenue NSW's assessments total about $81 million plus interest for 2015 to 2020.
  • The ruling is a tax decision, not a finding that drivers are employees under workplace law.

Uber has run out of road in its long fight with Revenue NSW. The High Court on Wednesday dismissed the rideshare giant's appeal in full, confirming that fares passed on to drivers count as wages for NSW payroll tax. The decision leaves Uber facing a bill of about $81 million plus interest for 2015 to 2020, and it settles one of the most closely watched state tax cases in years.

What the High Court decided

The case, Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, was heard in Canberra on 8 April 2026. Judgment was handed down on the morning of 4 November.

Reports said that the court, "by majority", dismissed the appeal in full. It declared that the drivers were engaged under contracts and that the fares they received are deemed wages under payroll tax legislation.

Reports said the split as 6–1. The dissenting judge had not been publicly identified in early coverage, and the full reasons had not been widely reported at the time of writing.

Uber was also ordered to pay the legal costs of the NSW Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. Coverage on Wednesday morning did not include a response from Uber.

Why the 'payment collection agent' argument failed

Uber's case rested on how money moves through its app. It argued it was only a "payment collection agent": it collected fares from riders, took out its service fee and passed the balance to drivers.

On that view, the money belonged to drivers from the start and was never Uber's wage payment to anyone. The NSW Supreme Court accepted that argument at first instance in September 2024.

The NSW Court of Appeal, sitting as a five-judge bench, unanimously reversed that decision on 1 August 2025. It found that driving was a service supplied "to" Uber, because it was "necessary for Uber to derive service fees and to continue its business".

The Court of Appeal also rejected an exemption for services ancillary to the use of goods. Driving, it said, was "one and the same" as using the vehicle, not something incidental to it.

According to reports, the High Court majority said Uber's structure gave it "substantive control over the fares before they are remitted to drivers". Chief Justice Stephen Gageler traced the history of the laws, noting that several states changed them late last century to capture contractual arrangements that disguise the true nature of a working relationship.

A tax ruling, not an employment ruling, after a five-year fight

The decision does not find that Uber drivers are employees under workplace law. It turns on the contractor, or "relevant contract", provisions of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW).

Those provisions can treat payments to contractors as wages for payroll tax purposes, even where no employment relationship exists. Reports said that the Fair Work Ombudsman had previously concluded the Uber relationship was not one of employment.

Coverage of the ruling gave no indication that it changes drivers' pay, conditions or classification under industrial relations law.

The dispute has run for more than five years. Based on court documents and media reporting, the key steps were:

  • Revenue NSW issued six assessments totalling about $81.5 million, covering driver payments for the 2015 to 2020 financial years, plus interest.
  • April 2021: Uber objected to the assessments.
  • August 2022: the Chief Commissioner disallowed the objection.
  • September 2024: the NSW Supreme Court found for Uber and revoked the assessments.
  • 1 August 2025: the NSW Court of Appeal unanimously reversed that finding.
  • 4 December 2025: the High Court granted special leave to appeal.
  • 4 November 2026: the High Court dismissed the appeal.

With the nation's top court ruling against it, reports noted the decision ends Uber's legal Options on these assessments.

Hypothetical example: how fares become a payroll tax bill

The figures below are illustrative only and do not reflect Uber's actual numbers or the historical rates applied to its assessments.

Hypothetical example: a platform Business is not grouped with any other employer, and all its activity is in NSW. In 2026–27 it remits $10 million to contractors under arrangements that are treated as relevant contracts, and it has no other wages.

Revenue NSW lists the 2026–27 tax-free threshold as $1.2 million and the rate as 5.45%. The taxable amount is $10 million minus $1.2 million, or $8.8 million.

Payroll tax: $8.8 million x 5.45% = $479,600 for the year, before any interest or penalties for late payment.

Repeat that over several years of back assessments and the scale of Uber's bill becomes clear. Real calculations are more complex, because the threshold is shared across grouped businesses and apportioned for interstate wages.

What it means for the NSW Budget and the gig economy

NSW Finance Minister Courtney Houssos welcomed the result. "Local businesses pay their fair share. Uber should pay their fair share too," she said, according to reports.

The paper estimated that later years are likely to push Uber's total Liability "well over $100 million". That is a media estimate, not an official figure, and later years were not before the court.

The NSW Government says only about one in 20 companies meet the threshold to pay payroll tax. For those that do, the ruling is a reminder of how far contractor rules can reach.

Advisers quoted in reports expect revenue offices in other states and territories to step up payroll tax compliance across the gig economy. King & Wood Mallesons flagged platform and marketplace operators, along with contractor-heavy sectors such as health and financial services, after the Court of Appeal decision.

What to watch

The key dates and developments ahead:

  • Publication of the High Court's full reasons, including the dissent, which will show how far the reasoning reaches beyond rideshare.
  • Whether Revenue NSW issues assessments for years after 2020, and how Uber responds.
  • Finsure's challenge to Revenue NSW assessments applying the same contractor provisions to its broker arrangements.
  • The NSW parliamentary inquiry into how the contractor provisions operate.
  • Any public statement from Uber on payment of the assessed tax and interest.
  • Compliance activity by revenue offices in other states with similar contractor rules.