The IGTO has received feedback from stakeholders that the ATO’s service commitments when engaging with tax practitioners has fallen off in recent years and more could be done to provide support to tax practitioners to continue supporting taxpayers and the system overall.

The IGTO had previously examined the ATO’s Services and Support for Tax Practitioners in a review investigation conducted in 2014. There have been significant changes in the tax landscape and the manner in which the ATO has engaged with tax practitioners since then.

A review investigation into this area could consider the range of interactions and services provided by the ATO to tax practitioners, the service standards or commitments that are established and how the ATO is applying resources to meet those commitments.

Assisting clients with compliance-related work from the ATO is a key aspect of the service provided by registered tax agents. The absence of readily available audit details on OSfA hampers the ability of these agents to easily ascertain the scope of the audits and enquiries put by the ATO to enable the provision of timely responses.

The absence of audit information from OSfA may also limit the agents’ ability to provide accurate and timely advice to their clients, which is essential for them to make informed decisions regarding their tax affairs.

The Commissioner’s Chief Executive Instruction to all staff and contractors titled ‘Identity management CEI’ explains that these practices are undertaken ‘to ensure the integrity of [ATO’s] registers, to reduce the risk of unauthorised access to confidential information and to help protect clients from identity theft’.  

In the current environment where many Australians have had their personal information compromised or potentially compromised as a result of various data breaches and scams, questions have been raised as to whether the ATO’s existing PORO and Extensive PORO processes are sufficiently effective to prevent unauthorised access to taxpayers’ confidential information using information that has already been compromised. 

Any investigations into this area will likely consider the work currently being undertaken in relation to digital identity that is being led by the Department of Finance as well as the ATO’s current work to strengthen its authentication and PORO strategies.  

However, there are still a significant number of ATO forms which cannot be lodged online. These forms must be manually completed by the taxpayer and sent to the ATO via post or fax. Examples include:   

• An unrepresented individual who is seeking to lodge an objection;   
• An unrepresented individual who is seeking to lodge a private ruling request but does not have an Australian Business Number (ABN); and  
• Providing identity documents to apply for a Tax File Number or ABN where the applicant is outside of Australia

For the avoidance of doubt, providing a digital channel to submit information is not limited to the use of digital forms or webforms. The submission of a scanned paper form via a portal or email would also be considered as a form of online submission.  

This investigation may also consider matters identified in Topic 2022-1 in relation to Accessibility of ATO services.

As an example, a complainant identified that the income amount pre-filled on her tax return was incorrect due to her employer having reported her income twice, under different business entities. The complainant was concerned that the ATO did not check or validate the payroll data it had received from her employer before pre-filling her tax return, and this pre-filling error had happened to her before.

Complaints lodged with the IGTO have raised concerns about the issuing of DPNs despite taxpayers engaging with the ATO and attempting to address the debt. Subsequent IGTO investigations have uncovered potential issues with how the ATO considers the individual taxpayers’ circumstances when deciding to issue a DPN, as well as concerns with the level of procedural fairness afforded to taxpayers during the ATO’s DPN awareness campaign process.  

Where the taxpayer is no longer a director of the company that the DPN debt relates to, there are also difficulties in accessing details of the underlying debt and disputing the debt amount, due to the disclosure provisions provided in the legislation. This has been a source of multiple IGTO complaints, which have found the ATO’s approach to disclosing such information to former directors to be inconsistent and may lead to further complaints as the frequency of DPNs continues to increase.   

There may also be a lack of transparency with the ATO not disclosing the total amount of potential DPN debt when it issues its DPN warning letters. The ATO does not warn taxpayers of what debts may be subject to lockdown DPNs and what debts may be subject to standard DPNs prior to issuing a DPN, which can be critical information when taxpayers are considering insolvency actions such as appointing a voluntary administrator or liquidator.

Taxpayers’ concerns raised with the IGTO included: 

• insufficient ATO action taken to protect accounts from identity fraud – for example, taxpayers inform the ATO about potential fraudulent tax returns, but the ATO is too slow to apply protections or the protections are insufficient. 

• protections applied to compromised accounts are too harsh and long lasting, which in many cases are disproportionate with the original compromise situation. For example, a taxpayer has had protections applied to their account for many years due to one potential compromise activity from years ago. The ATO internal procedures/policies do not appear to have a way to ramp down protections applied to compromised accounts. The taxpayer is concerned that these protections severely inhibit their interactions with the ATO (such as the need to call the ATO for a 24-48 hour window to access electronic lodgement of tax returns) for an indefinite period of time.

This topic aligns with Topic 2023-1 and they may be combined in any future review investigations. 

Any investigations into this area will likely consider the work currently being undertaken in relation to digital identity that is being led by the Department of Finance as well as the ATO’s current work to strengthen its authentication and PORO strategies.  

The ATO’s push to digital channels may make it more difficult for some taxpayers to communicate and engage with the ATO on taxation matters leading to increased costs, delays, disengagement and potential non-compliance.

An example provided to the IGTO for consideration is where the ATO defaults the issuing of Business Activity Statements (BAS) electronically as soon as a taxpayer lodges their BAS online. This is so despite the taxpayer’s previous request for BAS to be issued by paper. The ATO will only maintain the taxpayer’s preference if their delivery preference is paper and they continue only to lodge their BAS by paper. Any subsequent electronic lodgement or electronic amendment will result in the preference automatically changing to electronic. This can create issues where the taxpayer needs to engage the services of a registered tax practitioner. who generally undertakes lodgements electronically, but otherwise wishes to retain their preferred method of communication.

While the ATO may want to encourage taxpayers to engage through electronic means, the ATO should also ensure that their services are readily accessible to all taxpayers.

Concern has been raised that a number of ATO decisions are template driven and not tailored to taxpayers’ circumstances. At times, ATO officers have copied and pasted content without referencing the documents that they have considered in arriving at the decision and/or explaining how the law applies to the taxpayers’ facts. These types of decisions may not include sufficient detail in relation to the relevant legislation, policies, evidence considered and how these have been applied to the taxpayer’s circumstances to allow them to understand the ATO’s decision. 

Early release of superannuation decisions were cited as an example of where decision letters utilised generic dot points to explain why applications were not approved. There is often little or no accompanying explanation of what supporting documents were specifically missing or the reasons why the taxpayer is ineligible. There is often no telephone contact made by the ATO officer to the affected taxpayer before the decision is issued. Rather, the onus is laid upon the taxpayer to contact the ATO to seek further information or details. 

The current processes suggest opportunities to improve the ATO’s communication of decisions to taxpayers. As noted in the ATO’s Good decision-making model, even if a decision has been well considered and is technically sound, it is wasted if not communicated well.

Private binding rulings may be issued upon application by a taxpayer and applies to the taxpayer and transaction that are subject of the ruling. Where the taxpayers acts in good faith in reliance upon the ruling, they are protected from payment of any underpaid tax, penalties or interest even if the advice in the ruling is ultimately shown to be incorrect.  

Concerns have been raised with the IGTO about delays in the issuing of PBRs, refusals to rule on certain areas of tax law and ATO officers using information requests to extend timeframes for the issuing of private rulings.

Given the length of time that has elapsed since these earlier reviews, it may be worthwhile re-examining this area of tax administration. 

Concern has been raised with the IGTO by stakeholders about the efficiency and effectiveness with which the ATO identifies and manages such litigation, including any post-outcome processes where policies, processes or legislation may need to be amended in light of judicial rulings. 

It has been suggested to the IGTO that ensuring the program of strategic and significant litigation is well resourced and efficiently managed would yield broad benefits for the taxpaying community through increased certainty on the application of tax laws, particularly new tax laws.

The IGTO has identified that the labelling of the debt as ‘irrecoverable at law’ without accompanying correspondence warning the taxpayer of the possibility of it being re-raised has given rise to confusion and complaint.

As part of our complaint investigation, the IGTO has identified a Business Improvement Opportunity (BIO) for the ATO to improve its communication in relation to bankrupt tax debts.However, the ATO has not agreed to the proposed Business Improvement.

Investigation of this topic may involve broader consultation with the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) which has general oversight of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

The IGTO complaint handling service has received complaints about unclaimed superannuation monies both prior to, and since, 1 July 2019. These complaints have touched on issues including delays in accessing the unclaimed superannuation, it being paid to incorrect persons or accounts, or difficulties of access for claimants who have relocated overseas.

The ATO was tasked with implementing systems to administer a number of these Jobkeeper, Cash Flow Boost and Early Release of Superannuation, within a very short timeframe.

As with all large-scale implementations, a number of issues emerged through complaints lodged with the IGTO including concerns about eligibility decisions, timeliness, difficulties engaging with the ATO and taxpayers falling through the cracks.

The IGTO has undertaken investigations on certain issues – such as Jobkeeper and Cash Flow Boost eligibility – but there remain others that may need examination to identify learnings that could be adopted to prepare for possible future implementations of this kind.

The Auditor-General has also announced a number of performance audits focusing on different aspects of the implementation of COVID-19 support measures.

Any investigation by the IGTO will take into account the work that has been, or will be, done by the Auditor-General to minimise costs and duplication.

The management of agent client lists is essential for the efficient management of both an agent’s business as well as their ability to service clients and ensure their compliance with taxation obligations. Registered agents are able to add, remove and update client details through the ATO’s Online Services for Agents.

Through our complaints handling service, we have received concerns about some agents inappropriately adding clients without authorisation, resulting in uncertainty of payment of refunds, access to taxpayer records and disputes.

Stakeholders have also raised concerns that the ATO automatically removes a deceased person from the tax agent tax listing (which locks down any further action on behalf of the deceased).

Stakeholders have also raised concerns about the ATO’s failure to notify agents of any changes they make to a tax agent’s listing – i.e. taxpayers that have been deleted.

Concerns have also been raised about correspondence that is sent to the taxpayer’s myGov account, but which includes the tax agents address and contact details – so the taxpayer/client mistakenly thinks the agent has received the correspondence (and has actioned it).  This can become a source of tension between the client and their agent when the client assumes/expects the agent will have actioned the item of correspondence, when in fact the agent may not have been aware of it at all.

Consultation with leading professional bodies as well as the Tax Practitioners Board will be necessary in the conduct of any investigation in this area.

Examples have been given where officers have requested taxpayers with vision impairment to read and provide details from ATO-issued documents for proof of record ownership processes, or where taxpayers with hearing and speech impediments are requested to call in order to obtain necessary documents.

Investigations in this area would seek to ensure that ATO policies and processes for dealing with taxpayers with disabilities is empathetic, efficient and effective.

In some complaint cases, the IGTO has observed that the ATO has informed employees that the ATO has confirmed they have unpaid superannuation entitlements, but were not actively progressing debt recovery actions. In many cases, the IGTO’s investigation into the ATO’s actions prompted the ATO to take further debt recovery action such as issuing a Director Penalty Notice (DPN) to the employer.

Complainants have also raised concern that the ATO’s debt collection area is not driven to collect the debts due to the fact that the money is collected on behalf of employees and not on behalf of the ATO.

A potential review could examine how the ATO determines when to take further debt recovery action against an employer for its outstanding superannuation obligations.

The Taxation Administration Act 1953 was amended in 2019 to expand the ATO’s ability to disclose information to an employee regarding a real or suspected failure by their current or former employer to comply with their SG obligations. The new legislation assists the ATO to provide employees with information about further debt recovery action it has taken against the employer, including if it has issued a garnishee order or DPN to collect the unpaid superannuation.

The TCN’s role in providing this level of technical advice is necessary to ensure that all taxpayers are provided with certainty and consistency of tax outcomes, particularly in complex matters.

Stakeholders have raised concerns that it is not clear when the TCN is engaged in their matter and how they can engage with the TCN to discuss any opposing views. In recent complaints investigations, including those relating to Jobkeeper and Cash Flow Boost, it has been identified that earlier and more proactive engagement of the TCN could have minimised the delay in resolving certain technical issues that had emerged.

The application of GAAR is a serious matter and requires careful consideration. The ATO has established a panel (GAAR Panel) to assist officers in making decisions on the application of GAAR.

Stakeholder feedback on the administration of GAAR has indicated that the ATO timeframes on GAAR are unclear, leaving little time for taxpayers and their representatives to prepare submissions and appearances before the GAAR Panel. Similarly, they expressed uncertainty as to the status of GAAR Panel recommendations and whether ATO officers accept the recommendations of the panel. Finally, stakeholders expressed concern that the ATO is reticent in addressing potential GAAR issues in private rulings.

Concerns have been raised with the IGTO that the use of such opinions imposes a significant compliance cost and evidentiary burden on taxpayers seeking to dispute such opinions given the lengthy time that may have passed and lack of clarity of the information or evidence relied upon by the ATO. Furthermore, in some complaint cases received by the IGTO, it appears that opinions formed by the ATO have not been robust and supported by probative evidence.

Further issues arise due to the limited ability of taxpayers to have ATO fraud or evasions independently and externally reviewed through the Administration Appeals Tribunal (Nguyen v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] AATA 1041) or the Federal Court of Australia (Binetter v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCAFC 163).

The ATO’s use of fraud or evasion opinions was included on the IGTO’s 2017 work program. The ATO indicated at the time that it was undertaking an internal review of the use of fraud or evasion opinions across all business lines.

Over time, the numbers of applications for release from tax debts has declined as has the number of approvals and quantum of debts released. This has occurred, even in FY20 where large numbers of taxpayers were significantly impacted by the bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Taxpayers seeking release from tax debts are likely to be amongst the most vulnerable, who are unlikely to be able to afford professional tax representation and unable to fund ongoing challenges to ATO decisions.

Accordingly, it is imperative that the ATO takes appropriate steps to inform these taxpayers of their options to seek release and to ensure that internal processes for receiving, considering and decision making are robust to minimise disputes.

The IGTO’s investigation would seek to provide an in-depth analysis on the profile of these debt accounts, how the collectable debts accumulated, actions taken by the ATO to recover the debts and opportunities to improve the debt collection process in relation to these large balance accounts.

The accumulation of large amounts of debt in a small number of accounts creates a risk in the tax debt collection system and can diminish confidence in the overall administration of the tax system. Understanding how these debts arose and what actions can be taken to address them earlier and more effectively can assist the ATO to focus its resources and activities to minimise the risks of these debts becoming irrecoverable.

Stakeholders have raised concern with the IGTO that the ATO’s current consultation approaches are not sufficiently targeted, not fit for purpose and does not provide sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to ventilate and discuss issues needing to be addressed.

The ATO has published guidance on how s. 388-55 should be applied by ATO officers in PS LA 2011/15 Lodgment obligations, due dates and deferrals. Our complaints investigations suggest that deferrals under “s. 388-55” were only allowed in a very narrow, fixed set of exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, whereas the threshold in PS LA 2011/15 is “fair and reasonable”. A number of ATO decisions have been remade and reconsidered following our complaints investigations.

Investigating and reporting on the issue squarely aligns with the IGTO’s strategic objectives, as it goes to the consistency, transparency and effectiveness with which a key COVID-19 economic relief measure has been administered for the benefit of the community.  It is also an area with limited review rights for applicants, as a decision not to grant deferral of enrolment is not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court of Australia, leaving an IGTO investigation as one of the only avenues for taxpayers to seek an independent review of the ATO decision.

While the IGTO has investigated complaints from, and assisted, taxpayers who have approached our office, there may be others who have not approached the IGTO for assistance, or who are unaware that they can approach the IGTO for assistance. An investigation into this area would provide opportunity to raise public awareness of the issue and channels available for affected taxpayers.

The Commissioner’s discretion was initially exercised in very limited circumstances but following judicial clarification, was broadened to include a wider range of taxpayer circumstances. However, this consequently meant that some classes of taxpayers, who were later deemed to be eligible, did not have access to the COVID-19 support measures during their time of need.

The lessons learnt and insights from how the Commissioner’s discretion was communicated and exercised in administering relief during the COVID-19 pandemic will be important in driving future implementations of this kind, particularly in circumstances where time is of the essence.

This investigation is related to Topics 2021-3, 2021-12, and 2021-13.

That report identified a number of different areas for future inquiry. In addition to Topics 2021-10 and 2021-11, the following may be examined in future IGTO investigations:

1. industries that consistently rank highest in relation to collectable debt amounts and the underlying causes and reasons for this occurrence;
2. accounts of collectable debt aged 5 to 10 years, or older than 10 years, and the ATO’s recovery attempts;
3. SGC debt collection practices and the efficiency of collection of these liabilities
4. Factors contributing to low levels and at times declining levels of payment arrangements;
5. the impacts of new initiatives on collectable debt levels, such as the expansion of Director Penalty Notices to GST and the introduction of Single Touch Payroll;
6. whether unexpected liabilities arising out of ATO compliance activities are impacting collectable debt; and
7. The efficiency and effectiveness of PAYGW and PAYGI tax collection.

Some examples include: 

• Key taxpayer engagement 
• Top 100 and Top 1000 tax governance reviews as part of Justified Trust 
• Reportable Tax Positions 

For some taxpayers, Annual Compliance Arrangements may have been entered. 

For multinational taxpayers, Transfer Pricing, Mutual Agreement Procedures or Advanced Pricing Agreements may also be involved. 

This investigation could examine the costs associated with key compliance requirements and activities for taxpayers within various market segments, and the comparative benefits derived or expected to be derived by the ATO and the taxpayer. 

The provision of information by taxpayers to the ATO may carry a heavy compliance cost, especially where large volumes of information are required. Concerns have been raised with the IGTO that in some compliance activities, ATO information requests were not sufficiently targeted, requested large amounts of information that was difficult to obtain and provided little opportunity for the taxpayer to discuss the requested information and alternative options to address ATO enquiries. 

This topic may also incorporate Topic 2021-18 in relation to the ATO’s management of Legal Professional Privilege and 2021-19 concerning the use of compulsory information gathering powers. 

In March 2019, the Commissioner of Taxation announced that the ATO would take a tougher stance on challenging claims of LPP. This coincided with the hearing in the Glencore case and the High Court’s judgment that subsequently followed. 

More recently, the ATO has also released a draft protocol on which it is seeking stakeholder feedback. 

This investigation could focus on systems and processes established by the ATO to consider and assess claims for LPP, how this is separate from its general information gathering activities and how it assures taxpayers that documents to which LPP attaches are appropriately managed. 

Although the ATO seeks to obtain information from taxpayers without the need to rely upon these formal powers, there can be significant compliance burden and impact on individuals where those powers are used. Individuals who are formally compelled to provide information, evidence or documents have little to no recourse to challenge the use of those powers.  Moreover, individuals who fail to comply with the Commissioner’s requests under these powers may be committing an offence. 

Concerns have been raised with the IGTO that in certain circumstances, the ATO’s use of these powers can be disproportionate to the compliance risks sought to be addressed and can give rise to protracted compliance activities, increased compliance costs and heightened stress on the individuals. 

Stakeholder feedback on the utility of an investigation and key areas of concern will inform the approach adopted by the IGTO in any investigation.

The program was recently expanded to small businesses with less than $10m turnover (after a two year pilot). Over the last 3 financial years, the ATO has conducted 205 independent reviews for small business taxpayers.  

An investigation of the program could examine its ongoing effectiveness as a dispute resolution tool to avoid or minimise disputes at the audit stage and limiting the need for taxpayers to progress issues through the objection process. An assessment of cost savings for both participating taxpayers and the ATO would also be considered.  

• governance framework
• risks
• significant transactions; and
• variances in accounting and tax results.

There are a number of different compliance programs under the Justified Trust umbrella –

• Top 100 Justified Trust Program
• Top 100 GST Assurance Program
• Top 1000 Combined Assurance Program
• Top 1000 GST Assurance Program
• Top 1000 Tax Performance Program
• Top 1000 Next Actions Program

This investigation could examine one or more of the programs to assess costs and benefits for both ATO and taxpayers. It could also examine the ATO’s measures of success against its stated intended outcome of building and maintaining community confidence that large taxpayers are paying the right amount of tax.

The ATO is the primary avenue through which employees may raise unpaid superannuation complaints for compliance action and/or recovery.  

This investigation would examine the ATO’s resources in relation to these functions and the effectiveness of ATO strategies to identify, investigate and recover unpaid superannuation amounts. 

The Auditor-General’s current performance audit – Addressing Superannuation Guarantee Non-Compliance – is due to be tabled in February 2022. The IGTO will consider the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations before commencing any investigation, to avoid unnecessary duplication. 

In the 2020-21 financial year, the ATO received 24,778 complaints (including those from the IGTO). The effectiveness of the ATO’s complaint handling processes ensures that taxpayer dissatisfaction is addressed, minimises compliance costs and de-escalates potential disputes. It also builds and maintains community confidence in the ATO and, by extension, the Australian Government. 

There has been increasing interest in the ATO’s complaint handling processes, with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue recently making (or reiterating) recommendations aimed at enhancing awareness,  transparency and reporting of ATO complaints (see Recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6 and 15 of the Inquiry into the 2018-19 Commissioner of Taxation Annual Report). 

• the effectiveness of measures for assessment of the value and risks in terms of the Reinvention of the ATO’s service culture;
• adherence to ATO values in provision of advice, such as required under the Taxpayers’ Charter, and for staffing standards, including staff diversity, training and conditions for outsourced staff; and
• the appropriate balance of ATO permanent versus contract staff and adequacy of resourcing under a self-assessment system.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could examine how the ATO assures itself of the accuracy of the data provided by third parties, how it reconciles that data where it differs from information reported by taxpayers and the opportunities it affords taxpayers and their representatives to understand the basis for any amendments.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could examine whether the ATO has authority to explore outcomes which address the risks to revenue and minimise the administrative and compliance costs as well the pathways through which taxpayers may engage the ATO to exercise this authority.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could identify the main tax laws which ultimately rely on expert opinion to evidence compliance and identify any resulting practical compliance problems. In addition, the review could explore the consequences which may arise from reliance on expert opinion.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could examine the types of correspondence sent via the MyGov portal, how the ATO makes their representatives aware of such correspondence and the resulting consequences where it does not.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could examine how the ATO resources and structures its objection function and how it assures itself that both the ATO and taxpayers have common understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s case as well as the related scheduling and time management of those processes.

A potential IGTO review could identify the ATO record management and communication systems that record taxpayer related interactions and events as well as the ease with which such records can be retrieved.

Stakeholders have raised concerns that such opinions impose significant compliance and evidentiary requirements on taxpayers who bear the burden of proof in a dispute to amended assessments that have been raised outside the standard periods of review. The IGTO has also made similar observations in older complaint cases.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO assures itself of the robustness of such an opinion, including the evidentiary basis, and how the ATO affords taxpayers the opportunity to understand the case against them and provide relevant information before opinions are formally reached.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO assures itself of the independence of its in-house facilitators as well as the means by which disagreements can be appropriately escalated and resolved.

A potential IGTO review into this issue could examine whether the ATO‘s COI policies appropriately balance the need for unbiased decision making with ensuring that those decisions appropriately draw from the best available knowledge and experience.

A potential IGTO review of the issue could examine the history of such funding arrangements and their appropriateness for the current administrative environment.

It was noted that new taxpayer entrants into the tax system are often amongst the most vulnerable and strategies to support and encourage their early participation and compliance will likely yield significant benefits for them and the community.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could focus on youth and high school programs as well as strategies to engage with new arrivals to Australia.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO assures itself that trustees are afforded opportunities to be heard on matters that affect them, including where liabilities that are attributed to them and opportunities to dispute those liabilities.

A potential IGTO review could explore opportunities to provide practical guidance to the tax practitioner community based on input from tax practitioners and their representative bodies as well as software providers, the Information Commissioner, Australian Signals Directorate, ATO and TPB.

On 1 September 2020, the TPB released a draft Practice Note TPB (PN) D42/2020 on the use and disclosure of a taxpayer’s TFN and TFN information in email communications. The TPB invited comments and submissions on the draft practice note by 30 September 2020.

In some IGTO complaint cases, the IGTO has observed that employees may be prevented from recovering their SG entitlements where the ATO does not appropriately check or test the accuracy of information provided by employers during SG audits.

A potential IGTO review could examine how the ATO tests employer-provided information when it conflicts with employee-provided information as well as opportunities afforded to employees to provide input and the ease with which employees may access compensation where ATO mistakes are identified.

SG audits were examined in the IGTO’s Review into the ATO’s employer obligations compliance activities. The review examined the ATO’s information sources and recommended a greater reliance on proactive measures to detect SG non-compliance. The review did not examine in detail how the ATO tests information, opportunities afforded to employees to provide input and the ease with which employees may access compensation.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could include the level of training provided to contractors, the security measures taken as well as how the ATO assures itself of the consistency of complaints services delivered through contractors’ – such as information provision, consistency of decision making, professionalism, integrity and service standards.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO assures itself that, in initial decisions, sufficient reasons are provided, the legislative definitions are being appropriately applied and alternative grounds for compassionate release are being considered.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO resources its objection function, its internal expectations regarding timeliness, taxpayer engagement, quality and sustainability of decisions as well as how it assures itself that such expectations are being met.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could include the adequacy of relevant instructions to debt recovery staff, how the ATO assures itself that staff comply with these instructions and the appropriateness of staff record-keeping of their debt recovery decisions.

An IGTO review of this issue could examine the ATO’s promotion of MyTax and messaging regarding registered tax practitioners as well as the how the ATO assures itself of the accuracy of information reported and relied upon by taxpayers in using MyTax.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine the trend in numbers of public rulings and ATO use of practical compliance guidelines and other guidance products. It could also examine how the ATO provides certainty on integrity-related issues, for example how the ATO ensures that Taxpayer Alerts are followed up with subsequent ATO guidance or action as well as the ATO’s willingness to issue private rulings on certain issues.

The timeliness and management of the private ruling applications by the ATO is also highly relevant.  Elongated time frames and delay in process leave the taxpayer exposed where that arises due to ATO management.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine the effectiveness of ATO communications regarding written off debts as well the related ATO policies.

A potential IGTO review of this issue could examine how the ATO supports its staff in providing effective apologies and monitors officer effectiveness in doing so.

Stakeholders have suggested that given the large amount of money that is paid to the ATO for this purpose, a review could be conducted to identify whether there are opportunities to improve how the ATO uses the Levy to provide education and services to the SMSF industry.

Certain stakeholders have raised concern that the ATO is not undertaking sufficient litigation nor managing the other aspects of the strategic litigation program as fairly and effectively in developing the law as it should.