Taxation Administration (Reporting Exemptions for Electronic Distribution Platform Operators) Determination 2025

The instrument relies on several defined terms that shape the scope of each exemption. Understanding these concepts is essential for any operator determining whether it must report.

Electronic distribution platform (EDP) is given the same meaning as in section 84-70 of the GST Act, but with paragraph 84-70(1)(c) disregarded. Under that section, an EDP is generally a platform that enables suppliers to make supplies to end users, and that collects or processes consideration. Disregarding paragraph (c) means the definition is broader; that paragraph usually excludes platforms that merely process payments without being involved in the underlying supply. So the Determination captures more platforms than the standard GST definition.

Reportable transaction is defined by reference to table item 15 in section 396-55 of the TAA. That table item describes transactions for which reports must be given. The Determination does not re-state the table, so operators must look to the primary law to know what transactions are covered. In broad terms, it includes supplies of goods or services made through an EDP where the supplier is an Australian resident or the supply is connected with the indirect tax zone.

Indirect tax zone is given the same meaning as in the GST Act, but extended to include the external Territories. This expands the geographic scope for certain exemptions, particularly the condition in section 8(b) that requires the supplier not to have an address, the service not to be provided within, and payments not to go to accounts in, the indirect tax zone. Because the external Territories are included, a supplier located in Norfolk Island or Christmas Island would still be within the zone.

Substantial property and substantial supplier are thresholds used to exempt high-volume or high-value activities. For property, the exemption applies if at least 2,000 transactions were facilitated for that property in the preceding 12 months (or a prorated amount if the property was listed for part of that period). The prorated amount is the number of days listed divided by 365, multiplied by 2,000. For a supplier, the exemption applies if total supplies facilitated through the platform in the preceding 12 months were at least $1 million (including GST), or a prorated amount if the supplier started using the platform during that period. The prorated formula for suppliers divides days of use by 365 and multiplies by $1 million. These thresholds reduce reporting for operators dealing with large property management platforms (such as Airbnb for hotels with many units) or large sellers, on the basis that those suppliers are more likely to be tax compliant already.

Scheduled event, permanent attraction or experience, and scheduled passenger travel service define exemptions for specific supply types. They all require that the terms are set by the supplier and that any member of the public can book. The distinction between a one-off scheduled event (e.g., a concert) and a permanent attraction (e.g., a theme park) matters for the minimum place thresholds: 200 places for a scheduled event, 50 places per day for a permanent attraction. A charter service is expressly excluded from the scheduled passenger travel exemption, so private charters are not exempt even if the supplier makes many places available. Taxi travel is also excluded.

Mere booking or reservation is another key concept. The exemption in section 8(c) applies only where the consideration for the future supply is not specified at the time of booking, will not be provided via the platform, and the operator has no visibility of whether the supply or payment happens. This covers platforms like booking services that merely take an initial reservation without payment, such as some restaurant or hotel reservation systems where the guest pays on site. If the platform processes payment, even a deposit, the exemption likely fails.

The note to the definition of assets available for booking clarifies that this includes assets already booked or temporarily unavailable. This prevents operators from artificially reducing the count by taking properties offline. For the non-real property rental exemption (section 8(g)), the operator must have at least 50 such assets available for booking each day of the reporting period.

The primary class affected is operators of electronic distribution platforms that facilitate reportable transactions under section 396-55 of the TAA. For those operators, the Determination reduces the scope of their reporting obligations. It does not affect suppliers directly, though suppliers may benefit indirectly if their transactions are not reported to the Tax Office. The instrument is relevant to Australian and foreign platform operators that have any connection to the Australian indirect tax zone.

The exemptions are not uniform across all operators. A platform operator that is itself the supplier of the underlying service (under GST law) is exempt when it is treated as the supplier under section 84-55 of the GST Act, disregarding section 84-60. This is a subtle provision: under the GST Act, an EDP operator is sometimes deemed to be the supplier of a supply made through the platform (e.g., for certain transport, accommodation, or ride-sourcing). If the operator is so treated, the reporting obligation would rest with the operator as the deemed supplier. The Determination exempts that operator from reporting as a platform operator, likely because the operator is already reporting as the supplier through other channels. However, this only applies if section 84-60 is disregarded; section 84-60 excludes some supplies from the deemed supply rule. So operators must check whether the supply type is caught by section 84-60; if so, the exemption may not apply.

Listed entities and governments are exempt as suppliers. This means that if a publicly traded company or a government department uses an EDP to make supplies (e.g., a government selling tickets to a museum), the platform operator need not report those transactions. This reflects the assumption that those entities are already transparent to the Tax Office through other reporting regimes (e.g., corporate tax returns, government financial reporting) and that the additional data would be duplicative.

Substantial suppliers (turnover above $1 million on the platform) are also exempt as suppliers. This threshold catches large sellers. The rationale is likely that such suppliers are already in the tax system and audited. However, the exemption applies per platform, not globally. A supplier might be a substantial supplier on one platform (e.g., eBay) but not on another (e.g., Etsy), so the operator must assess per platform.

For transaction-level exemptions, the affected operators are those facilitating certain types of travel, events, attractions and asset rentals. Tour operators, accommodation booking sites, ticketing platforms, and equipment rental platforms will see reduced reporting for transactions meeting the place thresholds. For example, an airline booking platform that offers 10 or more seats on a scheduled flight need not report those ticket sales. A concert ticketing platform that sells 200 or more tickets to a one-off event need not report that event's sales.

The exemption for mere booking or reservation affects platforms that do not take payment. This is relevant to booking platforms where the customer pays the service provider later, such as some hotel reservation systems. These platforms may have no visibility into the final transaction, so reporting would be difficult or impossible; the exemption relieves them of a compliance burden they cannot practically meet.

The exemption for supplies wholly outside the indirect tax zone (section 8(b)) affects operators of platforms used by non-resident suppliers to provide services outside Australia, with non-Australian payment accounts. This is a low-risk category because there is no Australian tax connection. However, the operator must have checked addresses, service location and payment destination, and must have no other information indicating the supplier resides in the zone. This is a factual assessment that the operator must document.

Lastly, the repeal of the 2024 Determination affects all operators that were relying on that earlier instrument. They must transition to the 2025 version. The 2025 Determination has different definitional scope (e.g., inclusion of external Territories in the indirect tax zone) and may have altered thresholds. Operators should review their reporting systems to ensure they apply the correct instrument from 1 July 2025.

The Determination does not impose duties; it creates exemptions from an existing duty to report. The relevant duty remains in the TAA: under paragraph 396-55(b), an operator must give the Commissioner a report about each reportable transaction in the reporting period, in the approved form, within a specified time. The Determination removes that duty for transactions that satisfy the exemption conditions.

Operators have the right to rely on an exemption without prior approval in most cases. The exception is the multi-platform interposition exemption (section 6), which requires the operator to notify the Commissioner in writing that it is applying that exemption. The notification must be given on or before the day the report would otherwise be due, or a later day if the Commissioner agrees. This is a procedural condition; failure to notify means the exemption is not available, even if the substantive conditions are met. Operators should ensure they have a process to make this notification in time.

For all other exemptions, the operator simply determines whether the conditions are satisfied. There is no requirement to seek a private ruling or advance notice. However, the operator bears the evidentiary burden of proving that the exemption applied if the Tax Office later challenges non-reporting. Therefore, operators should maintain records showing that each condition was met for each transaction not reported. Without such records, the operator risks penalties for failing to lodge reports.

Operators have no duty to apply an exemption; they may choose to report even if exempt. Some operators might prefer to report all transactions to avoid the complexity of assessing exemptions or to reduce legal risk. The Determination does not mandate non-reporting; it only permits it.

The rights of suppliers are not directly affected. Suppliers do not have a right to demand that the operator not report their transactions, although if an exemption applies, the operator likely will not report. Suppliers that prefer non-reporting (e.g., for privacy reasons) might benefit, but those that prefer reporting (e.g., to evidence their income to the Tax Office) might be disadvantaged. There is no mechanism for a supplier to compel reporting.

The Determination preserves the Commissioner's power to request reports or information under other provisions. The exemption only applies to the specific reporting obligation under table item 15. The Commissioner could still issue a notice under section 353-10 of the TAA (general information gathering power) to obtain the same data from the operator. The exemption is not a shield against all inquiries.

For the substantial supplier exemption, the operator must calculate the total value of supplies facilitated through the platform. The threshold is $1 million (including GST) in the preceding 12 months ending on the last day of the reporting period. If the supplier started using the platform during that period, the prorated formula applies. The operator must have systems to track supplier turnover per platform. If the operator uses a calendar-year reporting period, it needs rolling 12-month data. The prorated amount for new suppliers uses the number of days the supplier had supplies available for booking, not the number of days since first transaction. This requires monitoring when the supplier first listed items.

The Determination itself does not impose penalties. Penalties for non-compliance arise under the primary law: if a platform operator fails to give a report for a transaction that is not exempt, the operator may face an administrative penalty under section 286-75 of Schedule 1 to the TAA (failure to lodge return or other document). That penalty is calculated based on the number of days the failure continues, with a maximum penalty of 75 penalty units for most entities. Penalty units are indexed; as of 2025, one penalty unit is $313, so the maximum penalty per document could be over $23,000, plus additional penalties for shortfall amounts if the reporting is linked to tax avoidance.

If the operator incorrectly claims an exemption and does not report, the failure is treated as a failure to lodge. The operator could also face a penalty for making a false or misleading statement to the Tax Office if it had a reasonable basis but the exemption did not apply. However, the strict liability penalty provisions for late lodgment apply regardless of intent.

Enforcement is the responsibility of the Commissioner. The Tax Office can conduct audits of platform operators, compare reported data with other sources (e.g., merchant statements, user returns) and identify discrepancies. Operators that systematically fail to report non-exempt transactions could face escalated penalties, including court action and potential referral for prosecution under criminal Code provisions for intentional non-compliance.

The exemption for mere booking or reservation (section 8(c)) is particularly risky because it relies on the operator having no visibility of whether the supply or payment occurs. If the operator later obtains information that the supply was made and payment was provided, the exemption might be invalid from the start. The operator must ensure that its platform design genuinely prevents visibility. If the operator has any follow-up data (e.g., confirmation of booking fulfillment), the exemption likely fails.

For the multi-platform interposition exemption, the condition that the other platform operator has a reporting obligation under table item 15 and has provided consideration directly to the supplier. If the interposed platform fails to report (e.g., because it is outside Australia, or claims an exemption), then the first platform must report after all. The operator must verify that the interposed platform actually has a reporting obligation and is complying. This is difficult to confirm without access to the other platform's legal status. The operator should obtain written confirmation from the interposed platform or rely on public statements.

The Commissioner has the power to reverse an exemption claim if the operator's factual basis was wrong. There is no immunity or safe harbour for honest mistakes. If the operator reasonably believed the exemption applied but was wrong, it still faces penalties for late lodgment, though the penalty may be remitted in whole or part under section 298-20 of the TAA if the failure is due to circumstances beyond the operator's control or the operator took reasonable care. But remission is discretionary.

The repeal of the 2024 Determination means that any ongoing duty to report under that instrument ceases to exist from 1 July 2025. However, the 2024 Determination may still have effect for reporting periods ending before that date. Operators that relied on the 2024 Determination for earlier periods must ensure they have lodged reports for those periods if the 2024 exemption did not apply. The 2025 Determination does not retroactively validate non-reporting for past periods.

The Determination sits within the broader regulatory framework for electronic distribution platforms. The primary interaction is with Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, particularly Division 396 which imposes the reporting obligation. Section 396-70(4) expressly empowers the Commissioner to determine exemptions, which this instrument exercises. Any amendment to Division 396 (e.g., by Parliament) could override or modify the Determination.

The Determination also interacts with the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (GST Act). The definition of "electronic distribution platform" borrows from section 84-70 of the GST Act (with paragraph (c) disregarded). That section is part of the GST regime for cross-border supplies. Therefore, any change to the GST Act definition automatically flows through to this Determination, unless the Determination is subsequently amended. The disregard of paragraph (c) means the Determination's definition is broader, capturing platforms that only process payments without being involved in the supply. That could create inconsistency if the GST Act were amended to narrow its definition, as the Determination would not automatically adjust; the Commissioner would need to issue a new determination.

The exemption in section 7(3) for operators treated as suppliers under section 84-55 of the GST Act (disregarding section 84-60) ties directly to the GST deemed-supply rule. If the GST Act is amended to change which platforms are deemed suppliers, this exemption's scope shifts. Operators should monitor GST Act changes for the deeming provisions.

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is relevant indirectly through the definition of "listed entity", which refers to section 995-1 of that Act. A listed entity is one whose membership interests are publicly traded on an approved stock exchange. This is a standard definition, but note that it only applies to membership interests (equity), not debt instruments. An entity listed on a debt market only would not be exempt under section 7(1)(a). Also, wholly-owned subsidiaries of a listed entity are exempt, but care is needed: the subsidiary must be wholly-owned at the relevant time, not at the time of the transaction. Operators should verify ownership structures.

The Determination interacts with foreign laws for cross-border operators. An EDP operator based outside Australia may have conflicting reporting obligations under its home jurisdiction. The Australian exemptions reduce the data that must be reported to the ATO, but the operator may still need to report under similar regimes elsewhere (e.g., OECD's Model Rules for reporting by platform operators). Australia has adopted the OECD's model, but this Determination provides local exemptions that may be narrower or broader. Operators subject to multiple regimes must reconcile requirements.

The Determination also interacts with privacy laws, including the Privacy Act 1988. Reporting obligations require collection and disclosure of personal information about suppliers (e.g., name, address, total consideration). Exemptions reduce that collection, which may reduce privacy compliance burdens. However, operators must still comply with privacy law for data they do collect and report. The Determination does not override privacy protections.

The repeal of the 2024 Determination means that the 2025 Determination is the sole instrument under subsection 396-70(4) from 1 July 2025. There is no transitional provision stated, so operators should assume that any transaction occurring on or after 1 July 2025 is governed by the 2025 Determination, even if the supplier or property was listed before that date. The 2024 Determination applied to reportable transactions in the reporting period running after its commencement date. The 2025 Determination will apply from its commencement date forward.

The instrument itself has no amendment history as it is newly made on 6 March 2025. However, its schedule repeals the Taxation Administration (Reporting Exemptions for Electronic Distribution Platform Operators) Determination 2024 in its entirety. That 2024 Determination was the predecessor instrument. The 2025 Determination supersedes it, effective 1 July 2025.

The existence of a new determination so soon after the 2024 one suggests that the Commissioner has identified gaps, threshold adjustments or definitional refinements needed. The most notable change is the inclusion of external Territories in the definition of "indirect tax zone". The 2024 Determination likely used the standard GST definition without that extension. This means that suppliers in external Territories were previously considered outside the zone for the section 8(b) exemption, but now they are within it, narrowing that exemption. Also, the 2025 Determination introduces a new exemption for operators deemed suppliers under GST law (section 7(3)) and for non-real property rental with 50+ assets (section 8(g)), which were absent in the 2024 text. The 2024 Determination likely had different thresholds for substantial supplier (perhaps $1 million as well) and substantial property (2,000 transactions). But without the 2024 instrument text, we cannot specify differences.

The repeal mechanism is straightforward: Schedule 1 repeals the whole of the 2024 Determination. The 2025 Determination does not contain a savings clause. Therefore, any reporting period that begins on or after 1 July 2025 must use the 2025 Determination. For reporting periods that straddle 1 July 2025 (e.g., a calendar year period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025), the operator must determine which part of the period is subject to each instrument. If the reporting period is defined separately in the TAA, it is likely a calendar year or financial year. The TAA's table item 15 does not specify a reporting period; it is set out in paragraph 396-55(a) of Schedule 1 to the TAA, which may prescribe a period. If the period is a financial year ending 30 June, then the period ending 30 June 2025 would be covered by the 2024 Determination, while the period ending 30 June 2026 would be covered by the 2025 Determination. If the period is a calendar year, the 2024 Determination applies to the period ending 31 December 2024, and the 2025 Determination to the period ending 31 December 2025. Operators should check the TAA provision.

The 2025 Determination is likely subject to future amendment by the Commissioner under the same subsection. The Commissioner could issue a new determination annually or as needed. Practitioners should check the Federal Register of Legislation for any subsequent instruments.

There is no litigation history associated with this specific instrument, as it has not been in operation. The predecessor instrument (2024 Determination) may have been challenged, but there is no reported case law referencing it within the source or known generally. The Determination is an administrative instrument, not primary legislation, and challenges would be rare. An operator could challenge the validity of the Determination or its application to particular facts in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court. However, typical disputes would arise in the context of penalties for non-reporting, where the operator argues that an exemption applied. In such cases, the court would interpret the Determination's definitions and conditions.

Key interpretative disputes that could arise:

• Whether an operator is truly an "operator" under the definition (especially for platforms that merely aggregate listings but do not process payments).
• Whether a supply is a "mere booking or reservation" when the platform processes a deposit or holds a credit card guarantee.
• Whether the operator had "visibility" of the supply or payment (section 8(c)(iii)).
• The prorated calculation for substantial property or substantial supplier when the property or supplier was listed for part of the period, but the platform operator may not have precise start dates.
• The meaning of "assets available for booking" when some assets are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance or seasonal closure.

None of these have been litigated yet. The Determination is new and likely to be tested only if the ATO audits a large operator.

The repeal of the 2024 Determination could itself be subject to challenge if an operator believed the 2024 Determination applied and relied on it for a transaction after 1 July 2025. But the repeal is clear, and there is no transitional provision. Any such challenge would likely fail.

• Notification requirement for multi-platform exemption: Section 6 requires the operator to notify the Commissioner in writing before the report due date that it is applying that exemption. This is a procedural trap. If the operator misses this notification, it cannot rely on the exemption even if the substantive conditions are satisfied. The notification must be given on or before the later of the report due date or an extended date agreed by the Commissioner. There is no form prescribed; a simple email to the ATO should suffice, but operators need to keep proof of notification.

• Prorated thresholds for new listings and suppliers: The formulas in the definition of "prorated amount" use days the property was listed or the supplier had supplies available. But note: for a new supplier that lists 100 items on day one, the "days the supplier had supplies available" starts from that day. If the supplier only lists once and then stops, the prorated amount could be very small, making them not a substantial supplier. Operators must track the specific day when supplies became available for booking.

• Assets already booked are still counted: The note to "assets available for booking" clarifies that already-booked assets or temporarily unavailable assets still count. So an operator cannot reduce the count by taking assets offline. For the 50-asset threshold, an operator with 45 listed properties and 5 booked out on a given day still has 50 assets available. This prevents manipulation.

• Substantial property threshold of 2,000 transactions: This is not per supplier but per property. A single property (e.g., a holiday apartment) that gets 2,000 bookings over 12 months becomes exempt. But what if the property is listed on two platforms? The threshold is per platform. Transactions on other platforms do not count. Operators must only count transactions they facilitated.

• Scheduled passenger travel exemption excludes charters and taxi: The exemption in section 8(d) specifically excludes charter services and taxi travel. So even if a charter operator offers 50 seats on a regular route, it is not exempt. Similarly, ride-sharing (taxi travel) is never exempt. This means Uber, Lyft, and taxi booking platforms cannot use this exemption.

• Permanent attraction conditions: The attraction must be open to the public on a regular and ongoing basis with opening times, price and terms set by the supplier. If the supplier offers dynamic pricing (e.g., surge pricing), that might still be "set by the supplier" at the time of booking, but if the price changes each day, it's still set. The condition that any member of the public may make a booking excludes membership-only attractions or those with discriminatory access policies.

• Mere booking exemption is fragile: Under section 8(c), if the platform collects any fee at the time of booking, even if the fee is refundable, the exemption likely fails because "consideration for the supply was not specified" might be satisfied, but the second condition requires consideration not provided via the platform. If the platform holds a credit card for guarantee but does not process the payment until later, it may still be "provided via the platform" if the payment is eventually processed through the platform's payment system. Operators should structure bookings to ensure no payment flows through the platform.

• Non-resident supplier exemption requires four cumulative conditions: The operator must check that no address is within the indirect tax zone, the service was not provided within the zone, payment was not to an account in the zone, and there is no other information indicating residence. If the supplier later updates its address, the exemption ceases. Operators need ongoing verification.

• Exemptions are per transaction: If a supplier makes 100 transactions, some may be exempt (e.g., for travel with 10+ places, or for permanent attractions) and others may not be. The operator must treat each reportable transaction individually. This requires granular tracking.

To comply with the reporting obligations while properly claiming exemptions, platform operators should take the following steps:

1. Map the reporting period. Determine the applicable reporting period under paragraph 396-55(a) of Schedule 1 to the TAA. This is likely the financial year or calendar year. Identify the due date for the report.

2. Identify all reportable transactions that occur in that period. This requires systems capable of detecting every transaction that falls within table item 15. The Determination does not define a reportable transaction; operators must look to the TAA. Typically, it covers supplies of goods or services for consideration received by the supplier through the platform.

3. Apply the exemption tests to each transaction or group of transactions. The exemptions are not cumulative; a transaction need satisfy only one to be exempt. But some exemptions require a threshold over the reporting period, not per transaction (e.g., substantial property is based on 12-month transaction count). For these, operators must maintain rolling counts. For the scheduled travel/event exemptions, the operator must know how many places were made available for booking (not necessarily sold) for that service/event.

4. Document the basis for claiming any exemption. For each transaction not reported, maintain records showing which exemption was relied on and how each condition was satisfied. For example, for the substantial supplier exemption, keep reports of total yearly sales per supplier, calculated as $1 million including GST. For the non-resident supplier exemption, keep records of address verification, service location checks, and payment destination checks.

5. For the multi-platform interposition exemption, send a written notification to the Commissioner before the due date stating that the operator intends to apply the exemption. Keep a copy of the notification and proof of delivery (e.g., email receipt). If the Commissioner grants an extension, keep the written agreement.

6. System design: Ensure that the platform's architecture allows identification of transactions that are mere bookings (no payment taken, no visibility of future supply). For the non-real property rental exemption, track the number of assets available each day to confirm the 50-asset threshold is met for the entire reporting period.

7. Review definitions regularly: Because the definition of "electronic distribution platform" incorporates the GST Act (with a disregard), any amendment to the GST Act may change the operator's classification. Also, the external Territories inclusion means operators that previously classified certain suppliers as outside the indirect tax zone must now treat them as within it.

8. Transition from the 2024 Determination: If the operator was relying on the 2024 Determination for the period ending 30 June 2025 (or earlier), ensure reports were lodged for that period. The 2025 Determination does not affect past periods. From 1 July 2025, apply the 2025 Determination. Check for any differences in thresholds, particularly the new exemptions for deemed suppliers and non-real property rental.

9. Consult with the ATO if unsure: The Commissioner may issue guidance or rulings on these exemptions. Operators facing complex fact patterns (e.g., a supplier with mixed exempt and non-exempt transactions) should consider a private ruling.

10. File reports for non-exempt transactions in the approved form and by the due date. Failure to lodge can result in penalties, regardless of whether the operator believed an exemption applied incorrectly.