Surcharge Laws held not to apply to state judges
{"Image DocumentName": "Surcharge Laws held not to apply to state judges", "Image ImageDescription": "Central to the reasoning of the majority in Austin was that the Surcharge laws made it more difficult for states to attract and retain State Judges. Applying the decision in Re AEU, the Court considered the State\u2019s ability to determine superannuation of its office holders is a critical issue. The nature of the NSW Pension scheme was critical to the decision. In that State, Judge\u2019s pensions were: taken as a periodic pension. no option to take a lump sum. once eligible, the quantum did not increase with extended length of service. If Judges chose to defer super surcharge liability, they would potentially face a large tax liability with no lump sum payment from which to meet that liability. The effect was a matter of argument, but included potentially encouraging judges to retire as soon as they qualified for a pension (to avoid the surcharge liability). The Court also had regard to amendments made by NSW to the pension scheme (allowing lump sum payments to meet surcharge liability) as evidence of the impact on the State\u2019s chosen remuneration scheme.", "Image XResolution": "37", "Image YResolution": "37", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Centimeter", "Image Software": "SlidePlayer", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Centered"}