A strong contract can still produce weak tax outcomes if the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sees the income as mainly a reward for your own labour. That's the moment many high-earning professionals face. The fees look commercial, the entity is in place, but the question is whether the income falls into the personal services income rules and, if so, whether the results test keeps you outside them.
By Panbo Ye, CFP® | FCPA | SSA® | Founder, Everglow
Who this article is for: Australian doctors, consultants, contractors, and professional service business owners who want clarity on whether they pass the PSI results test and what happens if they don't.
Is Your Contract Income Personal or Business? Understanding PSI
Dr Anya Sharma, a Sydney GP, receives a new services agreement from a large medical group. The numbers are attractive, the entity structure already exists, and the arrangement looks more independent than her old employment role. But before she signs, there's a sharper question underneath it all. Is this income really business income, or is it personal services income dressed in business clothing?
That distinction matters because the PSI rules look past labels and focus on substance. If the income mainly comes from your personal efforts or skills, the ATO may treat it as personal services income even if you invoice through a company or trust. I see this regularly with medical professionals, IT contractors, advisers, engineers, and consultants. The structure may be corporate, but the income stream still depends on one person showing up and doing the work.
A useful analogy is this. If the client is buying you, the income leans toward PSI. If the client is buying a broader business capability with systems, assets, staff, and commercial risk, the position may look more like ordinary business income. That's why entity choice alone doesn't settle the issue. If you're weighing setup options, this comparison of company vs sole trader in Australia is a useful companion read.
What usually triggers a PSI review
Some arrangements draw attention quickly because they sit in the grey zone between employment and a genuine business.
- Single-person delivery: One individual performs most of the income-producing work.
- Expertise-led fees: The client pays mainly for professional skill, judgement, or effort.
- Entity mismatch: The contract sits with a company or trust, but the work sits with one person.
- Template contracts: Terms say “contractor”, but the commercial reality may say otherwise. For a first pass on risky wording, tools such as this AI tool for legal professionals can help review contract structure, although tax treatment still needs separate advice.
Practical rule: If removing one person would collapse the income stream, PSI should be considered before anyone talks about tax planning.
The key point is simple. Before asking whether you pass the psi results test, you need to accept the prior issue: the ATO may treat high-fee professional income as PSI even when it flows through an entity.
The PSI Results Test Explained
A common trap looks like this. The contract says “contractor”, invoices go out through a company, and the work feels independent. At tax time, the arrangement still fails the results test because the client was really paying for the professional's time, using the client's systems, with little real cost exposure if something had to be fixed.
That matters because the results test is strict. Under the ATO's results test guidance, it is one of the personal services business tests, and you only pass if all 3 conditions are met for at least 75% of the relevant PSI for the income year.
The annual point is easy to miss. Passing once does not lock in the outcome for future years. Contracts change, clinics change rostering terms, firms start supplying more equipment, and billing models drift from fixed outcomes back to hourly or session-based payments. A professional can pass in one year and fail in the next on very similar work.
The three conditions in practice
Caption: The table below shows how the three conditions of the PSI results test usually play out in real contracts and operating arrangements.
| Condition | What It Means in Practice |
|---|---|
| Paid for a result | The engagement is priced around producing a defined outcome, not mainly around hours, sessions, attendance, or general availability. |
| Provide your own equipment or tools if required | You supply the tools or equipment needed to perform the work where the job genuinely requires them, rather than relying on the client for the core setup. |
| Liable for defects at your own cost | If the work has to be corrected, you carry the commercial cost of fixing it and cannot simply bill extra for the rework. |
These are not drafting points alone. They must show up in the actual arrangement. If the agreement refers to deliverables but the client still controls your hours, provides the full operating environment, and absorbs the cost of mistakes, the written terms may have limited value.
A practical way to assess the test is to ask three blunt questions. What exactly is the client buying. Who provides the working platform needed to deliver it. Who pays if the job has to be redone.
A decision pathway professionals can actually use
Start with payment. If the fee is really for your labour, availability, consulting time, or booked sessions, the first condition is already under pressure. By contrast, a fixed fee for a defined piece of work sits on stronger ground, provided the arrangement behaves that way in practice.
Then check equipment. This condition is often overclaimed. Bringing a laptop, phone, or small handheld tool does not help much if the client provides the rooms, software, diagnostic systems, admin support, and the main infrastructure needed to earn the income.
Finally, look at defects liability. Professional indemnity insurance alone does not settle this. The better question is whether you are on the hook to remediate defective work in your own time and at your own cost, with a real commercial downside if things go wrong.
If one limb is weak across most of the year, the safer working assumption is that the results test is not passed. That is the point where professionals should stop treating PSI as a formality and start checking the tax consequences, including how attributed personal services income may apply.
The results test works like a yearly stress test for independence. Labels matter less than who bears the commercial risk and how the work is actually paid for.
The practical takeaway is straightforward. Close enough is not enough. If all 3 conditions are not satisfied for at least 75% of the PSI in that income year, you do not pass the results test, and that usually means a fresh review of reporting, deductions, and structure is needed for that year.
Worked Example: Dr. Anya Sharma's Medical Practice
Dr Anya Sharma operates as a sole trader from Sydney and contracts with Castle Medical in Parramatta. She earns $250,000 under the arrangement. The amount is substantial, but the dollar figure doesn't decide the issue. The legal and practical features of the engagement do.
Looking at the contract through the results test
Start with the first condition. Is Anya paid for a result, or is she effectively paid for her professional time and availability? In many medical service arrangements, the clinic is buying consultations, patient care, and ongoing practitioner availability. That can feel commercial, but it doesn't automatically mean she is being paid to produce a specific result in the PSI sense.
Next, equipment. Anya may bring her own stethoscope and some small tools, but if the clinic supplies the rooms, systems, reception support, core practice infrastructure, and most of what is needed to deliver services, the equipment condition may be harder to support. This part is often more nuanced than people expect.
Then there is liability for defects. If an error, omission, or billing issue arises, who carries the cost of fixing it? If Anya must correct work in her own time and at her own cost, that points one way. If the clinic's systems absorb the practical and financial burden, that points another.
A disciplined way to assess her position
This is the kind of review I'd usually walk through with the actual agreement, invoices, workflows, and correspondence. On a first-pass analysis, I'd ask:
- Payment model: Is the arrangement framed around outcomes, or is it tied to professional services performed?
- Operational control: Who provides the essential practice environment and delivery infrastructure?
- Commercial risk: Who pays when something has to be corrected?
A doctor-specific deduction guide such as tax deductions for doctors can be useful, but deductions are secondary here. First, the income character has to be right.
A professional can be highly skilled, busy, and genuinely independent in a commercial sense, yet still fail the results test because the contract does not transfer enough result-based risk.
Likely pressure points in Anya's arrangement
For many GPs in service-fee or practice-sharing models, the weak point is not effort. It is contract design. The arrangement may still revolve around personal labour rather than a contract to deliver a discrete result.
That doesn't automatically mean failure. It means the details matter, and small drafting assumptions can have large tax consequences.
The practical lesson is this. In Anya's case, the decisive evidence would not be her ABN, branding, or fee level. It would be the payment basis, the equipment reality, and who wears the cost when work must be fixed.
What Happens If You Do Not Pass the Results Test?
A specialist sets up through a company, invoices under an ABN, and assumes the structure has settled the issue. Then year-end arrives, the contract is reviewed properly, and the results test does not stack up. That is usually the moment the actual PSI work starts.
Failing the results test means one route to personal services business status is closed for that income year. It does not settle the whole position. The next step is to check the other personal services business tests, namely the unrelated clients test, employment test, and business premises test, based on how the work was carried on in that year.
That yearly focus matters. PSI is not a set-and-forget label. A professional might fail the results test this year because the contract shifted toward hourly billing, use the clinic's rooms and systems, and carries little rectification risk. The same professional could have a different answer next year if the client mix, premises, or delivery model changes.
If no other personal services business test is available, the practical consequences are more direct. CPA Australia explains that PSI can be attributed to the individual and taxed at that individual's marginal rates, and that the tests must be considered each year for each test individual. CPA Australia also explains that PSI may still need to be disclosed at the relevant labels even where the PSI rules do not ultimately apply, as set out in CPA Australia's PSI explanation.
For high-income professionals, the trade-off is rarely academic. A failed test can affect who is assessed on the income, whether profits can be distributed as intended, and whether an existing company or trust structure is doing what you thought it was doing. That is one reason advisers often revisit the tax treatment of trusts in professional structures once PSI risk appears.
The practical checklist is short.
- Check whether another personal services business test is satisfied for that year.
- Reassess the position annually for each relevant individual.
- Confirm whether PSI labels still need to be completed in the return.
- Review contracts before year-end, while billing terms and work practices can still be changed.
This annual reassessment point is where many otherwise careful professionals slip. The mistake is not misunderstanding the definition. The mistake is assuming last year's answer survives a new contract, a different clinic arrangement, or a heavier reliance on one payer.
For Dr Sharma, a failed results test would not justify a rushed conclusion that the structure has failed altogether. It would trigger a disciplined review of the remaining tests, the reporting position, and whether the current setup still makes commercial sense. Even broad business reading from outside tax, such as understanding Section 179 and MACRS, can remind professionals that tax outcomes often turn on classification rules and timing, not just on how an arrangement is labelled.
The key point is practical. If you do not pass the results test, reassess the full PSI position for that year, identify whether another test keeps you in personal services business territory, and fix weak contract settings before the year closes if the facts still allow it.
Reporting, Record-Keeping and Structuring Implications
Once PSI is on the table, compliance moves from theory to paperwork. At this stage, many professionals discover that the strongest defence is not a clever argument but a complete file. Contracts, invoices, evidence of who supplied tools, and records showing who bore rectification costs often matter more than broad statements about being “in business”.
What records actually help
A good PSI file usually shows how the arrangement operated, not just how it was described. In practice, that may include signed contracts, engagement letters, evidence of equipment ownership or leasing, correspondence about defect correction, and records separating different income streams where treatment differs.
- Contract evidence: Keep the signed agreement and any amendments.
- Operational proof: Retain documents showing who supplied tools, rooms, systems, or support.
- Rectification trail: Keep emails or notes showing who fixed mistakes and who paid for that correction.
- Income separation: If one stream may differ from another, maintain clean records for each.
Why structure still matters, even when structure is not decisive
PSI doesn't make entities irrelevant. Rather, it stops them being the whole answer. Companies and trusts may still be appropriate for commercial, asset-protection, succession, or governance reasons, but the PSI overlay can affect how income is treated and how family distributions are viewed. For trust-specific context, this guide to the tax treatment of trusts is helpful.
I also find that clients who read widely on business tax rules sometimes mix Australian and overseas concepts. For example, material on understanding Section 179 and MACRS may be useful in a US context, but it doesn't answer Australian PSI questions. The comparison can still be a useful reminder that tax treatment always depends on the local rule set.
If you need practical support, Everglow Prosperity offers tax advisory, accounting, and structure review where PSI issues arise. The work is usually less about finding a shortcut and more about aligning contracts, records, and reporting with the actual facts.
The main compliance point is straightforward. If your PSI position is ever reviewed, your records need to show how the arrangement worked in real life, year by year.
PSI Results Test FAQs
Can I still have PSI if I operate through a company or trust?
Yes. Operating through a company or trust doesn't stop income from being PSI. The rules look through the entity and focus on whether the income is mainly generated from an individual's personal efforts or skills. The structure may still have valid commercial reasons, but it doesn't settle the PSI question by itself.
How often should I assess the PSI results test?
You should assess it each income year. Contract terms, client mix, and operating practices can change, and those changes may alter the outcome. That annual discipline matters because the ATO expects the PSI rules and personal services business tests to be applied correctly for each year and for each relevant individual.
If I fail the results test, have I failed everything?
No. Failing the results test only means you must consider the other personal services business tests. The next step is to work through the remaining pathways and see whether another test may still keep the PSI rules from applying. The mistake is stopping the analysis too early.
What if one contract looks results-based, but another does not?
That can create a mixed position that needs careful review. In practice, some engagements may support a stronger personal services business argument than others. The record-keeping burden rises because you need clear evidence showing how each stream operates and why the treatment taken is supportable.
Does passing a PSI test settle superannuation or payroll tax issues?
No. PSI is an income tax concept. Superannuation guarantee, payroll tax, and employment law use different tests. A person may be treated one way for PSI purposes and differently under another regime, depending on the facts and the legislation being applied.
Where can I find more general tax answers from your team?
For broader guidance, you can browse our frequently asked questions page. PSI issues, however, usually turn on fine factual distinctions, so general information is only a starting point.
The closing answer is the same as the opening one. The psi results test can be decisive, but the primary professional risk often sits in what happens after a failed test, and in the annual habit of reassessing contracts, reporting, and structure before the ATO asks questions.
If you would like clarity on how these principles may apply to your own circumstances, contact Everglow Prosperity on 1300 913 929 or email contact@everglow.au.
To book directly: Book a meeting with Panbo.
Want help applying this to your situation?
Every situation is different. Book a time with our team to talk it through, or call us on 1300 913 929.