Insights
TAX & BUSINESS
Tax‑free SEG allowance for practice assistants
Practice assistants in medical surgeries can receive a tax‑free hazard allowance under certain conditions if they are predominantly exposed to direct contact with potentially infectious patients.
The Administrative Court (VwGH) recently had to consider under which circumstances such direct contact with potentially infectious patients in a medical practice can be assumed. It is decisive that the employees' activity is actually linked to an increased and inevitable risk. For the allowance to be tax‑free, it must be demonstrated that the employees predominantly perform work that poses a particular danger to life, health or physical safety.
The proof can be provided not only by verifiable basic records but also by other means. In addition, the VwGH emphasised that the entire working time must be taken into account when assessing the situation. This also includes tasks directly associated with the hazardous activity, such as necessary journeys or organisational duties related to patient care.
Specific risk profile of the respective activity
At the same time the court clarified that not every contact with patients automatically justifies a tax‑free hazard allowance. In the medical sector it rather depends on the specific risk profile of the particular activity. In the case of practice assistants in the surgeries of general practitioners or paediatricians, however, the court regarded an increased infection risk as present. These practices are often the first point of contact for acutely ill people with easily transmissible infectious diseases. Staff at the reception or in direct patient contact frequently have no special spatial protective measures in place.
Conclusion
The decision shows that tax‑free hazard allowances are also possible outside of classic high‑risk professions, provided that the actual risk in everyday work can be convincingly documented.
The proof can be provided not only by verifiable basic records but also by other means. In addition, the VwGH emphasised that the entire working time must be taken into account when assessing the situation. This also includes tasks directly associated with the hazardous activity, such as necessary journeys or organisational duties related to patient care.
Specific risk profile of the respective activity
At the same time the court clarified that not every contact with patients automatically justifies a tax‑free hazard allowance. In the medical sector it rather depends on the specific risk profile of the particular activity. In the case of practice assistants in the surgeries of general practitioners or paediatricians, however, the court regarded an increased infection risk as present. These practices are often the first point of contact for acutely ill people with easily transmissible infectious diseases. Staff at the reception or in direct patient contact frequently have no special spatial protective measures in place.
Conclusion
The decision shows that tax‑free hazard allowances are also possible outside of classic high‑risk professions, provided that the actual risk in everyday work can be convincingly documented.