SME minutes, June 2011

[H1]Meeting details

Venue:

Rendezvous Hotel Melbourne
Ballroom A - Level 1
328 Flinders Street
Melbourne

 

 

Date:

10 June 2011

 

 

Start:

9.15am

Finish:

4.15pm

Chair:

Richard Collis
Assistant Deputy Commissioner
Small and Medium Enterprises

 

 

Contact and Secretariat:

Richard Gates

Contact phone:

(03) 9275 2415

Attendees

Tax practitioners

 

Greg Nielsen

Pitcher Partners

Gary Christie

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Julie Van der Velde

Ernst & Young

Peter Godber

Grant Thornton

Greg Valles

Moneywise Accountants

Keo Chui

Richard A Bobb

Steven Skoglund

Davidsons

Tristan Webb

Crowe Horwarth

Phil Parry

Blaze Acumen

Sandy MacNeill

Cutcher & Neale

Simon Le Maistre

KPMG

Phil McCann

McCann Taxation Services

Australian Taxation Office

 

Richard Collis

Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Small and Medium Enterprises

Gary Andrews

Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Small and Medium Enterprises

Kent Perdrisat

Assistant Commissioner, Aggressive Tax Planning

Bruce Collins

Assistant Commissioner, Aggressive Tax Planning

Mathew Umina

Assistant Commissioner, Small and Medium Enterprises

Michael Hardy

Assistant Commissioner, Small and Medium Enterprises

Fiona Dillon

Assistant Commissioner, Law and Practice

Margaret Plew

Small and Medium Enterprises

Andy Ditchfield

Indirect Tax

Rex Daines

Indirect Tax

Liz Pavan

Small and Medium Enterprises

Kellie Sannholm

Small and Medium Enterprises

Richard Gates

Small and Medium Enterprises

Australian Treasury

 

Graeme Cuxson

Trusts & Regulation Unit

Apologies

Danny Dexter

Lowenstein

Craig Holland

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Bernie Flood

Barrett Baxter Bye

Declan Lambe

BDO Services

Mark Pizzacalla

HLB Mann Judd

Robert Powell

BDO Services

Tim Hall

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Asad Ansari

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

[H2]Agenda items

Disclaimer

ATO Tax Practitioner Forum (ATPF) Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Working Group meeting agendas, minutes and related papers are not binding on the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) any of the other bodies referred to in these papers. While every effort is made to accurately record views expressed, the wording necessarily represents a summary of statements of general position only, and care should be taken in interpreting those statements. These papers reflect the position at the date of release (unless otherwise noted) and readers should note that the position on any issue may subsequently change.

1.1 Introductions and welcomes

Richard Collis (chair) opened the meeting, welcomed the members and participants briefly introduced themselves.

1.2 Table and acceptance of previous minutes and action items

The minutes and action items of the previous meeting(s) held on 22 October 2010 and webinar held on 11 March were confirmed and accepted by the members with minor attendance changes.

1.3 Action items - update

Chair provided an update on the action items from previous meeting.

Action item

Status

International dealings schedule - Consultation

Consultation hasn't happened yet but is still planned. ATO will advise when this happens.

S&ME lodgment activities - possible tax agent form to advise of 'unable to lodge' status

This action item is completed.

Webinar involving ATPF SME members and the Tax Practitioners board (TPB)

The Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) haven't been able to present in a webinar to date despite many attempts. There are two options available when they can:

¦ the webinar as requested or

¦ participate in next face to face.

 

1.4 Presentation - Tax practitioners - good governance and promoter penalty laws

Bruce Collins discussed promoter penalty laws that are currently in place. The laws are designed to deter illegal schemes that promote tax avoidance.

A frequent misunderstanding is that schemes covered by the promoter penalty laws are limited to mass marketed schemes (like the paper schemes of the 1970s or bottom-of-the-harbour schemes of the 1980s) and do not include boutique one-to-one arrangements. That is incorrect.

The laws came into effect in April 2006 after extensive consultation with various stakeholders by Treasury and the ATO has continued this engagement with affected tax intermediaries since the laws took effect.

The ATO want to help tax intermediaries to self-regulate where possible and has provided a range of support materials for them, including the publication: Guide for tax intermediaries: Good governance and promoter penalty laws, and the text of the speech marking the fifth anniversary of these laws made by the Commissioner on 7 April 2011.

The ATO also encourages tax intermediaries to manage the risks of potential involvement in tax avoidance schemes through early engagement with the ATO (eg on potential ruling applications). However, some entities who have tried to mitigate their risk through rulings have then implemented arrangements in a different manner and have not been covered by the ruling obtained.

It was emphasised that a scheme doesn't need to 'work' to be a tax exploitation scheme, as the definition focuses upon intention to obtain a scheme benefit, not actually obtaining one.

The Guide for tax intermediaries:Good governance and promoter penalty laws contains a list of specific types of tax planning arrangement which the ATO has recently considered from the perspective of the promoter penalty laws, including financial product schemes, employee benefit arrangements, abusive trust schemes, private company deemed dividend avoidance schemes, etc.

The three step approach (below) to identifying and reporting potential tax avoidance schemes was discussed. A book Common tax schemes was released recently and good media coverage helped its promotion.

1. Recognise - recognise the features of potential tax avoidance schemes.
 

2. One example is a scheme that was marketed in a doctor's surgery. It consisted of a testimonial from a doctor saying it was great to send medicine overseas to needy places and the ATO had endorsed the scheme. It wasn't endorsed by the ATO and the ATO has now intervened, so it is good to remember 'if it looks too good to be true, it probably is'.
 

3. Reject - potential involvement with such schemes.
People are relatively savvy about mass-marketed schemes but smaller ones are harder to detect. Tax practitioners and other advisors are a key part of helping their clients to reject involvement in such schemes and we have seen multiple instances where such intermediaries have helped their clients not to get involved.
 

4. Report - report the scheme and those who are promoting it to us.

ATO has encouraged tax agents and taxpayers to report potential schemes and there has been an increase in reporting by both intermediaries and taxpayers. People can report on a confidential basis, to help maintain the integrity of the tax system. Reporting potential tax avoidance schemes and the entities who are promoting them early is best as prevention is better than cure.

A member added that they were supportive of the laws as they want to maintain a level playing field for their clients hence the importance of reporting.

A copy of the Good governance and promoter penalty laws guide was distributed to participants. The guide was released by the Commissioner on 7 April 2011 with the main aim being to help tax practitioners and their clients.

1.5 Update on Division 7A

Mathew Umina provided an update on Division 7A issues.

Sections 109T and 109XI

Final versions of draft Tax Determinations 2010/D9 and 2010/D10 are to be published in mid June 2011 (published on 15 June 2011 as TD 2011/15 and TD 2011/16 respectively). These Determinations outline a number of factors that the Commissioner will take into account in determining the amount of a deemed entitlement arising under sections 109XI and 109T (ie payments and loans through interposed entities respectively).

Feedback on these two determinations was overwhelming supportive of the position contained with the draft TD's. The final versions are largely consistent with those drafts.

109RB Practice statement

Draft Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2843 was published on 31 March 2011. Written and verbal feedback received has been largely favourable. The taking of corrective action was the key area where greater clarity has been sought.

The ATO reiterated that it prefers that honest mistakes and inadvertent omissions be bought to their attention as soon as possible so that we can work together to deal with the Division 7A breach.

A member wanted to clarify the ATO's stance with respect to tax agents not adhering to the law and the client being unfairly punished.

The ATO acknowledged that it is difficult to punish a taxpayer where they engaged a tax agent and acted in good faith, but each case needs to be assessed on its merits.

It was also noted by the ATO that they has previously implemented amnesties but this cannot continue indefinitely.

In response to questions about incompetent tax advice the ATO noted that it had recently referred a matter to the tax agent's board. A member added that it would great it tax agent referrals to the board could be publicised.

It was also noted that the tax agent's board is keen to receive referrals.

Unpaid present entitlements

The ATO released a practice statement and a taxation ruling on unpaid present entitlements (UPEs) in 2010. Following the release of these documents the ATO has delivered a number of presentations at various forums to raise awareness of these products and the ATO's position.

Feedback received at these presentations, and from the Division 7A Working Party, has resulted in the practice statement being re-published and an accompanying fact sheet has been produced (now published).

A member asked what was required to be in place by 30 June 2011 to demonstrate that the funds representing the UPE have been set aside for the sole benefit of the beneficiary.

The response was that a signed investment agreement needs to be in place by 30 June 2011.

Bulk mail out

The ATO advised that in early June 2011 it issued in excess of 8,000 letters to tax agents to advise them of the ability to take corrective action and to put in place investment agreements.

The ATO asked for feedback around this letter campaign.

UPE test case

As reported at the March 2011 NTLG meeting, the ATO supports a request to fund a test case program to test the Commissioner's interpretation of trust entitlements as addressed in TR 2010/3. The ATO is working with representatives from two professional associations to discuss the facts of a proposed test case and to how to best progress that case.

1.6 Trust streaming and the proposed legislation fix

Fiona Dillon presented information about certain legislative changes to the taxation of trust income.

Background

These changes were prompted by implications of the High Court's landmark decision in Bamford in March 2010, including:

5. Issues for primary producers: As the High Court confirmed that the reference in Division 6 to a present entitlement to income means a present entitlement to the distributable income of a trust, provisions which confer an advantage on beneficiaries who are presently entitled to income, such as the tax concessions for primary producers, cannot operate in a year in which a trust has no distributable income.
 

6. Uncertainties as to the effectiveness of streaming: The High Court endorsed the proportionate approach, whereby a beneficiary is assessed on the same proportion of the net income of the trust estate (broadly, the trust's taxable income) as the proportion of the trust income of the trust estate to which they are presently entitled. The endorsement of the proportionate approach has led to uncertainty about the effectiveness, for tax purposes, of the practice of streaming different types of trust income. The difficulties of the proportionate approach are particularly relevant for those streaming provisions which look to determine how much of the sum assessed to a beneficiary (which we say is a proportionate share of all the net income (or taxable income) of the trust) is attributable to income of a particular character.

These issues, amongst others, were raised in the ATO's decision impact statement for Bamford, published on 2 June 2010.

In December 2010 the Assistant Treasury announced [in Media Release 025/2010] that:

¦ the primary production averaging and farm management deposit (FMD) provisions would be amended to ensure that they could apply to a trust beneficiary in a year that the trust had no distributable income (such as in loss years) with effect for the 2010-11 and later income years

¦ Division 6 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) would be updated and rewritten into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), and

¦ the Board of Taxation (Board) had been asked to provide advice as to whether there were any other changes that needed to be made for the 2010-11 and later income years.

In March 2011 Treasury released a discussion paper canvassing options to implement recommendations made by the Board to:

¦ better align the concept of 'income of the trust estate' with 'net income of the trust estate'; and

¦ enable the streaming of capital gains and franked distributions.

After reviewing the submissions received in early April the Assistant Treasurer announced that the proposed changes addressing the income issue would be deferred until the Broad review, but the streaming changes would proceed. In recognition of the deferral of the income issue, the exposure draft legislation released in April also contained targeted anti- avoidance rules to address some of the more blatant possible manipulation. [See Assistant Treasurer Media release 052/2011]

After considering the further submissions received on the Exposure Draft and meetings with key stakeholders, the Bill and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (EM) were drafted over May. In recognition of the late time in the year in which this legislation would be introduced, the ATO worked hard with Treasury to ensure, where possible, that areas of potential uncertainty were adequately addressed in the legislation or accompanying explanatory material.

The draft legislation

On 2 June 2011 legislation was introduced, as announced by the Assistant Treasurer [in Media Release 86/2011] to enable:

¦ trust beneficiaries access to primary production averaging and FMD provisions in a year when the trust has no income to which beneficiaries can be made entitled

¦ the tax effective streaming of franked dividends and capital gains, as well as targeted anti-avoidance rules, with a specific carve-out for managed investment trusts (MITs).

[See: Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 5) Bill 2011]

Fiona then summarised key aspects of the legislation which had been introduced.

PP averaging and FMD changes

Individual beneficiaries of a 'non-discretionary' trust who would have been presently entitled to income had the trust had any income would qualify for averaging and retain their FMDs. Fiona noted that the definition of a non-discretionary trust is broader than the current definition of 'fixed trusts' for tax purposes.

In addition, up to 12 individual beneficiaries chosen (in writing) by the trustee of a discretionary trust that has no income for a year also qualify for averaging and retain their FMDs.

Anti-avoidance changes

Two specific anti-avoidance rules have been introduced that are designed to prevent exempt beneficiaries being used to inappropriately reduce the amount of tax payable on the taxable income of a trust (excluding a MIT).

Fiona explained that the first rule (section 100AA) applies to the extent that an exempt entity has not either been notified of their entitlement to income of the trust, or paid their entitlement, within two months of the end of an income year. The rule treats the exempt beneficiary as not being entitled to that share of the trust income, with the result that the trustee is assessed under section 99A on a corresponding share of the taxable income of the trust.

In broad terms, the second rule (section 100AB) prevents an exempt entity from having a disproportionate share of the trust's taxable income relative to that exempt entity's entitlement to the total value accruing to the trust in that year (broadly calculated with reference to tax concepts, adjusted for notional amounts).

In effect, the trustee will be assessed on so much as would otherwise be assessed to the exempt beneficiary, as exceeds the exempt beneficiary's share of that which is broadly the net value accruing to the trust in that year.

The Commissioner has a discretion not to apply either of these anti-avoidances rules where their application would be unreasonable.

Streaming changes

The streaming changes will only affect trusts that make a capital gain or that are in receipt of a franked distribution for the 2010-11 or a later income year.

MITs are prima facie excluded, thought they can, if they wish, choose (within two months of year end) to apply the streaming changes for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 income years. If a MIT makes a choice for the 2010-11 income year, the changes will automatically apply to it for the 2011-12 year.

Trust capital gains and franked distributions are now assessed via the operation of Subdivisions 115-C and 207-B (rather than Division 6). But if no beneficiary is made 'specifically entitled' to them, the changes should produce a similar result to the existing law.

To ensure that amounts dealt with under Subdivisions 115-C and 207-B are not taxed twice, the amount otherwise assessed under Division 6 is adjusted via the operation of new Division 6E.

Capital gains

A beneficiary that is specifically entitled to a capital gain included in a trust's taxable income, is taken to have made a capital gain (or the trustee is assessed on their behalf). [It should be noted that a beneficiary can be specifically entitled to a gain whether or not that gain forms part of the income of the trust estate.]

To be specifically entitled to a capital gain, the beneficiary must receive or be reasonably expected to receive all of the financial benefits referrable to that gain (net of losses to the extent that equivalent losses were applied against that gain for tax purposes).

Any capital gains (or parts of capital gains) in respect of which no beneficiary is presently entitled will be assessed to all beneficiaries entitled to receive a share of other trust income (that is, to a share of the income of the trust estate excluding any capital gains or franked distributions to which any beneficiary is specifically entitled).

This means that if you want to effectively stream a capital gain, you need to make the relevant beneficiary specifically entitled to all the financial benefits referrable to that gain (including, for example, the benefit of both the discount and non-discount component of the gain). Not to do so can produce odd results.

Franked distributions

A beneficiary that is specifically entitled to a franked distribution is assessed on the amount of the franked distribution included in the taxable income of the trust and on the franking credits attached to that distribution.

As with capital gains, franked distributions to which no beneficiary is specifically entitled are assessed proportionately to those beneficiaries entitled to other income of the trust (that is, the income of the trust estate excluding any capital gains and franked distributions to which any beneficiary is specifically entitled).

Retrospective for this year

The changes apply from the 2010-11 income year (although only optionally for early balancers).

Administrative considerations

In recognition of the need for taxpayers to be educated in respect of these potentially significant changes prior to their enactment (and in acknowledgment of the fact that we cannot provide interpretative advice until after enactment) the ATO's general communications approach to date has been to raise awareness of these changes. This is particularly so that trustees can consider their impact when making resolutions to distribute income and or capital for the 2010-11 income year.

The ATO has sought to use the ATO website www.ato.gov.au as the key tool for communicating the latest information on the measure Improving the taxation of trust income . It will be updated regularly.

Other channels being used to alert taxpayers and practitioners to the existence of this page and the contents of the Bill include eLink emails, tax agent broadcasts and relevant webcasts, as well as a direct mail-out to all trustees who have lodged without a tax agent.

Despite the intense consultative process and hard work of government, there may be scope for unintended consequences arising from the new provisions. The Minister clearly stated in his second reading speech that if this is the case, the government will act to retrospectively amend the provisions to ensure that the policy intent is achieved.

Moreover, we have invited members of the NTLG Trust Consultation Sub-group to advise us of the highest priority issues requiring general guidance or ATO view products.

Broad review

Graeme Cuxston of Treasury advised that work will soon commence on the broad review and re-write of Division 6. An initial discussion paper is planned to be released for consultation in around September this year.

Post meeting update

The legislation received Royal Assent on 29 June 2011 and is now law.

The NTLG Trust Sub-group met (by phone) on 27 and 28 June 2011 to discuss the need for transitional administrative arrangements in respect of this new law.

As a result of those discussions, and in recognition of the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers given the enactment of the new law so close to the end of the income year in which it will first apply, the Commissioner has responded quickly to put in place two administrative arrangements for the 2010-11 income year.

The first is the extension of the period within which the requirements for there to be a specific entitlement to franked distributions must be satisfied for the 2010-11 income year (so it matches the period trustees have to make beneficiaries specifically entitled to capital gains and the administrative period allowed to make beneficiaries presently entitled to trust income).

The second administrative transitional arrangement is that staff have been instructed not to select cases for review or audit in respect of the 2010-11 income year for the sole purpose of determining whether the purported streaming of capital gains or franked distributions by a trustee is effective.

Further details of these arrangements can be found on the ato.gov.au website, accessed by using the following link: Improving the taxation of trust income . The ATO would like to thank members of the Trust Consultation Sub-group for ensuring that the members of the professional associations they represent were promptly informed of these arrangements. This, coupled with emails from the ATO to tax agents and to subscribers of our eLink update service, should ensure that practitioners are aware of the administrative arrangements for the 2010-11 income year.

The need for ATO guidance on the new law was also discussed at the June meetings of the Trust Consultation Sub-group already referred to. It was agreed that priority issues would, to the extent possible, be dealt with in fact sheets to be published shortly. Where material of a more interpretative nature is required it will be provided by public ruling.

The first fact sheet has now been published. It provides an overview of the new law. It also clarifies a number of issues raised by the sub-group at the 27 June meeting. It can be accessed via this link to the Trust home page (which has been recently established to house this and other trust specific material): Trusts - home . The trusts home page can also be accessed from www.ato.gov.au website by going to the ' Businesses ' page and selecting ' Trusts' under the heading ' Tax topics A-Z '. From the trusts home page, the fact sheet can be accessed by selecting ' Improving the taxation of trust income ' under the heading ' In detail '.

As a result of feedback received at the 27 June meeting of the Trust Consultation Sub-group, the issue of 'specific entitlement' to capital gains and franked distributions will be the topic of our next fact sheet. Sub-group members have agreed to provide the ATO with examples and other issues they would like clarified.

1.7 Federal budget implications

Michael Hardy provided changes to taxes as a result of Federal Budget announcement.

FBT
There are changes to the travel rate for vehicles for FBT purposes.

Phoenix
There are legislative changes that allow the ATO to pursue a director of a company when they wind up a company to ascertain if any obligations remain outstanding.

Instalment payment plans will be made available to employees caught up in the phoenix activity.

Treasury are planning to issue explanatory draft legislation relating to superannuation guarantee on 20 June for consultation.

There has been extra funding for the short term given to the ATO to investigate phoenix companies.

Not for Profit
There will be a new not-for-profit regulator
'Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission' (ACNC) implemented from 1 July 2012. The ACNC will make decisions on behalf of all commonwealth agencies but the ATO will still maintain status functions. Treasury are to head up a taskforce to gather charity information and implement the new regulatory body with heavy support from ATO.

1.8 Mergers and acquisitions

Rex Daines and Andy Ditchfield provided information about a new guide relating to mergers and acquisitions and the GST implications.

A GST guide was created through much consultation and released at the beginning of June 2011. It details what GST factors you need to consider when considering a merger or acquisition.

The guide is to provide assistance and feedback indicates that people do overlook the GST component of mergers and acquisitions. People also wanted to know specifically if this is the right way to do things.

A communication campaign is being rolled out which includes mail outs, running workshops and discussing specific cases and the use of client relationship managers. In these workshops ATO will encourage clients to voluntarily disclose and feedback received from completed workshops has been positive.

The guide attempts to be quite thorough but ATO asked if the members would like a checklist to assist them to cover the GST aspects of mergers and acquisitions? The responses were positive in that the members thought a checklist would be helpful.

1.9 Sharing ATO risk assessment

Margaret Plew provided an overview on how the ATO risk assesses SME clients and an opportunity to be a part of the second stage of a pilot.

A project (pilot) has been running for two years detailing how the ATO creates risk profiles of SMEs and ascertaining whether taxpayers find value in knowing this process. The purpose of the pilot was not to obtain voluntary disclosures but to gauge the worth of outlining the process.

A professional firm of tax practitioners indicated strongly that it would be useful because they could possibly provide the ATO more and tailored information about clients so they were more fully understood.

This information could lead to the elimination of review therefore reducing costs for taxpayers and agents.

On outcome of this assessment could be that based on information provided the ATO may advise people that they wouldn't be approached for the next year.

A copy of a risk report and associated information was provided to participants.

Feedback from pilot participants re: the information handed out was very positive. Having an accurate, pertinent file on a client ready to be accessed at any time would be very convenient and reduce costs for all concerned.

An important finding from the risk report was the report showed low risk for client but another model used displayed high risk. This was due to the incorrect industry code being input and a more appropriate relatable code was required.

A question arising from a member was 'how long does a bad rating last for'? The response was until the next income tax return is lodged and that information is then assessed. It was then suggested that the ratings be publicised.

Additionally, another member noted concerns of bottom end of market as clients there are not as well informed. There is more control at the top end.

A second pilot is scheduled for August/September 2011 designed to address many questions resulting from a questionnaire that was sent. The second pilot will cover a much large sample of SME businesses across the segment.

There are still issues to iron out in relation to the risk report and it is still definitely a work in progress.

The ATO wanted to know what sort of support would be needed to be able to explain this process and manage it within your firm. Responses were:

¦ correct industry codes accessible

¦ need to know what the goal posts, benchmarks etc

¦ need to know how much involvement is required ie time commitment for tax agent perspective.

A call was put out for volunteers to be a part of the second pilot. There was quite substantial interest and if you want to be involved contact ATPF secretariat .

1.10 Risk differentiation framework

Richard Collis presented the Risk differentiation framework (RDF) which the ATO uses in plotting SME clients.

The SME market is quite large and certainly larger than other markets, which is where the RDF is important and helps to define the market.

Entities are placed into 1 of 4 quadrants in the RDF - high risk taxpayers, key taxpayers, medium taxpayers and lower risk taxpayers - according to risk assessment and information received.

The dots appearing in the framework are relative to each other. For example an entity is not necessarily a high risk but is high risk relative to another that is in a different quadrant.

Differentiated communication methods will be used based on which quadrant an entity is placed.

Modifying the structure of a business can cause an entity to move quadrants.

The ATO is contemplating disclosing information that informs people they are in quadrant 1 (higher risk taxpayers). Quadrant 1 and 3 (medium risk taxpayers) need to be targeted.

1.11 Private group approach

Richard Collis provided information about the private group approach that S&ME is adopting for profiling purposes.

Two questions were posed at the start of the presentation to ponder and respond to at the conclusion:

¦ What is you immediate reaction?

¦ What issues do you think will arise?

A private group is usually comprised of immediate family or a very tight extended family ie not all aunts and uncles.

The ATO historically has looked at income and output solely around an entity. Now profiling takes place considering all the linking entities and factors, thus providing a whole different picture.

The ATO wants take the tax and super systems to a new level so people do see them as community assets. Additionally, we want to tell the community about our activities, be overt about them.

Members' feedback around initial questions

¦ The ATO needs to go to the 'whole structure' approach. Tax agents think that way already and if you don't, you can miss a lot.

¦ It's a logical extension of current ATO activity.

¦ Assessing a family, addressing all the links is one thing but what about knowing about the other entities tied up with all the family members?

¦ Do you have access to all the relevant information that you need?

¦ ATO staff need to be on side with the new focus.

Communicating this approach may pose a challenge as it starts to get personal.

1.12 Other business

The action item 'Excess contribution tax' information will be circulated out of session.

Michael Hardy gave a brief run down about a new debt collection approach.

The ATO is looking across the lifecycle of a client and placing emphasis on providing a better handover to colleagues re: getting a commitment from taxpayer around their propensity to pay. This is two fold:

¦ from the ATO perspective we want to ensure that me make adjustments to the process to collect the correct revenue

¦ from a community confidence point of view we need to ensure that we are collecting correct levels of revenue to demonstrate the system is working for the greater good.

Action item

Follow up personal services income issue

Description

Sandy McNeill suggested that the personal services income issue suggested by Bernie Flood continue to be pursued despite Bernie's retirement.

Responsibility

Richard Collis

Due date

Completed

Retiring ATPF SME Working Group members

Chair made special mention and thanks to retiring members Bernie Flood and Kylie McEwan for their commitment and past contributions to the ATPF SME Working Group forum.

The Chair thanked members for their input and discussion on the agenda items. The meeting closed at 4.15pm.

[H15]Next meeting

The next meeting is set for Friday 28 October 2011.