Australia has used a so-called "backpacker tax" to illegally tax foreign workers from eight countries, according to a landmark ruling.
In 2017, the government imposed a controversial 15% tax rate on two visa categories for working holiday-makers.
But a court on Wednesday found the levy was in breach of existing treaties with the UK, US, Germany, Finland, Chile, Japan, Norway and Turkey.
Tens of thousands of foreign nationals may be owed money, local media said.
The Australian Tax Office said it was considering whether to appeal against the ruling.
The levy was challenged by an international tax company on behalf of a British tourist, Catherine Addy, who worked in Australia between 2015 and 2017.
She welcomed the ruling, telling ABC News: "I think it is wrong that foreigners should be taxed more harshly than Australians when they are doing the same work."
About 150,000 foreigners travel to Australia every year on working holiday visas, with many finding work in the farming and hospitality industries.
What did the court find?
The Federal Court of Australia said the tax could not be applied to citizens of those eight countries who had been employed on category 417 or 462 visas.
This was due to treaties which required Australia to tax those foreign nationals in the same way as local workers.
Unlike foreign workers in Australia, locals do not pay any tax until their yearly income exceeds A$18,200 (£9,700; $12,500). In contrast, foreign workers on 417 or 462 visas are taxed 15% on the first $37,000 they earn.
In his ruling, Justice John Logan described the tax as "a disguised form of discrimination based on nationality".
During her working holiday, Ms Addy lived mainly in a house share in Sydney's Earlwood, a point that proved to be crucial to the case.
This meant she was considered a "resident" for tax purposes in Australia, while other foreign nationals who move around may be considered "non-residents".
The ruling may force the government to repay hundreds of millions of dollars in total, local media reported.
What reaction has there been?
Taxback.com, the accounting firm that organised the lawsuit, said it was clear the "backpacker tax" breached several international agreements when it was introduced in 2016.
"It also damaged Australia's reputation as a working holiday destination," Joanna Murphy, the firm's CEO, said.
The Australian Tax Office sought to play down the ruling, saying it would have no impact for most working holidaymakers.
"This decision only affects the tax rates applying to a minority of working holiday-makers who are also residents, and only those from countries affected by a similar clause in the double tax agreement with their home country," it said.
When he returned from Australia, Mr Mathews said he had 15% deducted from wages he earned at a call centre.
"Local Australians couldn't believe we had to pay extra tax," Mr Mathews told the BBC. "I'm not averse to paying tax - I was using Australian services - but it should be on the same terms."
Oliver Bastock, from Derbyshire, is currently living in Melbourne and works in marketing, after moving to Australia in June 2018.
He said the tax system was confusing, adding he had no idea "why you don't get anything back".
Australia has used a so-called "backpacker tax" to illegally tax foreign workers from eight countries, according to a landmark ruling.
In 2017, the government imposed a controversial 15% tax rate on two visa categories for working holiday-makers.
But a court on Wednesday found the levy was in breach of existing treaties with the UK, US, Germany, Finland, Chile, Japan, Norway and Turkey.
Tens of thousands of foreign nationals may be owed money, local media said.
The Australian Tax Office said it was considering whether to appeal against the ruling.
The levy was challenged by an international tax company on behalf of a British tourist, Catherine Addy, who worked as a waitress in Sydney in 2016.
About 150,000 foreigners travel to Australia every year on working holiday visas, with many finding work in the farming and hospitality industries.
What did the court find?
The Federal Court of Australia said the tax could not be applied to citizens of those eight countries who had been employed on category 417 or 462 visas.
Are you from one of the eight relevant countries and have been employed in Australia on category 417 or 462 visas since 2017? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:
CANBERRA, Australia — A shark bit off a British tourist's foot and mauled another's leg on Tuesday as the men snorkeled on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, officials said.
Officials did not immediately release the men's names but said they were 22 and 28 years old.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
The shark severed one man's right foot and then circled back and mauled the other's right calf, Queensland state Ambulance Service spokeswoman Tracey Eastwick reported.
They were brought 7 miles by boat to the mainland town of Airlie Beach where paramedics were waiting for them, an ambulance official said. They were then flown by helicopter to a hospital in the city of Mackay in serious but stable condition, RACQ CQ Rescue said.
Related
"An English tourist has had his foot bitten off and another has serious lacerations to his lower leg after a shark attack in the Whitsundays today," the helicopter rescue service said in a statement.
The victims told the helicopter crew "they were wrestling and thrashing about in the water" in a passage between Hayman and Whitsunday Islands when they were attacked, the statement said.
A shark killed a man in November last year in a Whitsunday Island harbor where two tourists had been mauled a month earlier.
The 33-year-old victim had been diving from a paddle board while on a yacht cruise.
The spate of attacks in the Whitsundays left authorities struggling to explain an apparent escalation in danger in the internationally renowned vacation destination. In September last year, two Australian tourists were mauled on consecutive days, including a 12-year-old girl who lost a leg.
SYDNEY, Australia — Australian regulators on Tuesday accused Google of misleading consumers about its collection of their personal location information through its Android mobile operating system, the latest government action against a tech company over its handling of vast quantities of user data.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleged in a lawsuit that Google falsely led users to believe that disabling the “Location History” setting on Android phones would stop the company from collecting their location data. But users were actually required to also turn off a second setting, “Web and App Activity,” that was enabled by default.
Google did not properly disclose the need to disable both settings from January 2017 until late 2018, the suit alleges. The company changed its user guidance after The Associated Press revealed in August 2018 that it was continuing to collect the data even after the Location History setting was switched off.
The commission also said that while Google made it clear to users what features they would lose by turning off location services, the company did not inform them adequately about what it would do with the data collected.
“This is part of a system of not being able to make informed choices about what’s being done with your data,” said Rod Sims, the commission’s chairman.
Mr. Sims called the lawsuit the first of its kind by a national government against a tech company over its use of personal data. The agency is seeking what he called significant financial penalties against Google, among other corrective measures. He added that he hoped the case would raise awareness among consumers over how much data is being collected.
“We need to be getting ahead of them, because this is a whole new world,” he said of data collection issues.
A Google spokeswoman said in a statement that the company was reviewing the allegations. She said Google would continue to engage with the commission over its concerns but intended to defend itself.
The action by Australian regulators comes as governments and consumer groups around the world have expressed growing concern about the power of tech companies, including their collection of personal data from devices that are indispensable to the lives of billions of people.
Consumer groups from several European countries had already sued Google over the location tracking issue under a comprehensive data privacy law adopted in Europe last year. Under that law, a French agency fined Google 50 million euros, or about $55 million, in January for not properly disclosing to users how it collected data to create personalized ads.
In the United States, regulators approved a $5 billion fine against Facebook this year over its role in allowing Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm hired by President Trump’s 2016 election campaign, to gain access to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users.
While Google has made changes to Android in later iterations that limit the location data it gathers, the business incentives for collecting as much personal data as possible remain great. Location-targeted advertising is worth an estimated $21 billion a year, and Google, along with Facebook, dominates the mobile ad market.
The Australian lawsuit is in part the product of a 19-month investigation by the consumer commission into the market power of Google and Facebook. It issued 23 recommendations, including an overhaul of privacy laws, to limit their reach and force them to take more responsibility for the content they disseminate.
The Australian government has also passed legislation challenging the power of tech companies, including a law in 2018 that compelled tech-industry giants to disable encryption. And under a new law criminalizing “abhorrent violent material” online, Australia is using the threat of fines and jail time to pressure platforms like Facebook to block such content, and it is moving to take down websites that hold any illegal content.
