The ATO has been criticised for garnishing alleged tax debts especially from small businesses even while they are still contested.
When you’re a small business, every dollar of cashflow matters and suddenly finding thousands or tens of thousands of dollars missing from your business account can kill your operation. I questioned the ATO about this and also the enforcement of FATCA, a taxation data sharing agreement with the United States.
Transcript
Senator Roberts
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. On a number of occasions, the ATO has been asked if it can provide a breakup of small-business tax debt into principal, interest, and penalty. The ADA’s consistent reply is that this breakup cannot be supplied. Is that still the case?
I’m Melinda Smith, Chief Service Delivery Officer. We, in the near future, we will be able to provide more detail around the construct of the debts. We, last year, changed our core operating system across to a system called ASFP. And part of the benefit of that was it gives us these flexibilities to be able to report. For our collection activities, that’s not information that is as critical to us as other information. So it hasn’t been a priority to be able to produce this immediately, but we are working on that. And I have Vivek Chaudhary, who is our Head of Debt, who might be able to give us a little bit more detail, he’s just teleconferencing in from lockdown. We might need to just unmute the cameras.
Mr. Chaudhary, can you hear us?
I can hear you very well, can you hear me?
Yes, no. We can hear you now, go ahead.
Thank you, Senator. Vivek Chaudhary, Deputy Commissioner of Debt and Lodgement. I am able to share with you that for month ending April 2021 the primary tax for all small business tax debt was 81.7%. A further 15.6% makes up interest, general interest primarily, but also short fall interest, and a small proportion, nearly 2% plus some decimal points, off penalties.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So that’ll be regularly available in future?
Our plan is yes to provide that information in future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Commissioner, are you familiar with the ATO’s failed leave to appeal to the High Court on the gold refining case known as ACN 154 520 199 Proprietary Limited in Liquidation versus Commissioner of Taxation?
Yes, I am and I’ll ask my colleague, who is Acting Second Commissioner, Law Design and Practise.
[Malcolm Roberts] So my question specifically on that is, some have said that the ATO’s appeal was a request to enable the ATO to rely on, effectively, email gossip to justify the raising of a tax debt; would the Commissioner view this as a correct interpretation or if not, what is your view?
This is Kirsten Fish, Acting Second Commissioner for Law Design and Practise, Australian Taxation Office. No, we wouldn’t agree with that characterisation. The litigation has been ongoing for quite some time. There was an AAT hearing followed by an appeal to the full federal court. On appeal to the full federal court, the Court found that there was procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had taken into account the evidence presented before the AAT, informing its conclusions on the anti-avoidance rules. The Commissioner’s appeal to the High Court was, well, application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, was in relation to that aspect, and whether there was a procedural unfairness in the way the AAT had approached the case. And whether, if there was, whether that impacted the outcome. So, the Commissioner’s application for special leave related to the way that the AAT conducts, takes into account evidence before it, and approaches its consideration of the issues. It was a matter of legal principle that we applied for special leave. Now, of course, having special leave refused, the matter will be returned to the AAT to be reheard. Again, by a freshly constituted tribunal, to determine whether the anti-avoidance rules apply or not. And that reconstituted AAT will, of course, take into account the evidence put before it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. In light of Minister Stuart Robert’s statement on Thursday the 13th of May, two days after the budget was delivered, what actions have you taken as the Commissioner, or within the ATO, to implement this government policy that small business will not be penalised until adjudicated on?
So, I can’t comment on announced but un-enacted measures. So, the announcement that you’re talking about was part of the budget measures to give the AAT powers to effectively grant a stay if the Commissioner is taking debt enforcement action while a matter is before the AAT. I can’t comment on the actual measure itself because it’s not yet law. But of course, in practise, we are very conscious And there are very few instances where we take stronger action in terms of garnishees, where a matter is in dispute. So, taxpayers have a lot of opportunities and we, it’s a part of our legal system, that if you disagree with the Commissioner, you have the opportunity to first object and then have your matter heard before the AAT. Where we have a genuine dispute we, in general, will pause debt collection activity, and we’ll only pursue debt collection activity where we see risk of dissipation of assets, or there’s fraud, or evasion, in the small market.
[Malcolm Roberts] It makes it difficult when the system allows the assessor to be the reviewer. And, as I understand it, that is the case within the ATO. And, also, there is enormous power within the ATO, and small businesses have been hurt by this, as I understand it.
Well, of course, in Australia we have multiple layers of review, and we’ve got a very strong independent review of our decisions in the form of the AAT. The AAT is constituted by some federal court judges, and other members of the profession. They are appointed by the Governor General, they are statutory appointments to the AAT. The AAT is completely independent of the tax office and provides a review of our decisions, and will determine, stand in the shoes of the Commissioner, and redetermine the matter. In addition to that completely independent review of our decisions, we have multiple layers of review available within the office. There’s a statutory right of review in terms of objection. And we also now have a small business independent review, conducted before assessment, which happens both independent review and pre-assessment, and objection post-assessment, happen in a completely separate part of the office to where the audits are undertaken. So in my area, in Law Design and Practise, we conduct that independent review, whereas under a Second Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, that’s where we conduct the audit activity that creates assessments.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Let’s move to something that’s out of your control, to some extent, and that, well, to the ATO, that’s FATCA; the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. And I understand it’s a difficult issue. And I can see the smile on your face. It’s, you must be tearing your hair out. FATCA, for those who don’t know, is a U.S. law requiring banks around the world to report accounts held by U.S. citizens, who are residents in other countries, including dual citizens. Despite FATCA’s significant and capricious impacts, and they’re truly horrendous on people in this country and around the world, why did Treasury or the ATO decide that individual deposit account holders were not significant stakeholders when preparing the post-implementation review of FATCA?
Senator, Jeremy Hirschhorn Second Commissioner, Client Engagement Group. Senator, in terms of the post implementation review, are you referring? Sorry, I’m afraid I’m not aware of the review.
[Malcolm Roberts] Apparently there is a review of FATCA and you have to make a report on deposit account holders and you have to send that report to significant stakeholders. But, apparently, deposit account holders were not considered significant stakeholders.
[Hirschhorn] I might pass my question…
[Mrakovic] Senator, I think that that issue probably falls with us, but I’ll have to take it on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. And I appreciate the complexity, so. It’s a difficult, and you’re caught in the middle.
Senator, I know that you know, and you’ve just pointed out that FATCA is a unilateral measure. It is a decision by the U.S. to basically expect information. And to some extent, to some extent, we try to basically work with other countries in terms of, obviously, exchange of information. But we are very conscious of the fact that there are certain entities and certain, basically at the end of the day, the regulatory and tax framework in one country is different from another. And a lot of this sometimes involves trying to work with the two. But let me take the specific question on notice, so that we can give you the best answer we can provide.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It boils down, ultimately, I can’t read your name, Ms Mackenzie, is it?
Mrakovic.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mrakovic, it boils down ultimately to the US blackmailing. So, I’m working within that, that confine. While account holders are notified by their banks that their data will be sent to the ATO, pursuant to the FATCA agreement, neither the bank nor the ATO is required to notify the account holder of the actual data sent to the Internal Revenue Service in America under the FATCA agreement. Would it be possible for the ATO to provide this information automatically through the ATO MyGov portal in the same way that interest and dividend income is reported to recipients?
So, Senator, the information that we provide to the U.S. is a standard set of information that’s around account information. Often there will be an overlap with the information which we already have in our, in people’s pre-fill. So, generally, it will be things like bank interest, which we already pre-fill for people. I would say we have not considered whether there is some sort of separate reporting to individuals of reported data. We’d have to, we’d have to think about that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Would you be willing to listen to some of the people being affected?
So I think we’re, we’re very happy to speak to affected people.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’d be good because they’re very concerned about inaccuracies. They’re not accusing the ATO of any malfeasance, but they’re very concerned, because it impacts them. And I know from context myself, that entails a hell of a lot of money in accounting fees, legal fees, because the IRS is just unaccountable. It’s just the law unto itself. And that puts our citizens in the middle of that firing line.
And Senator, what I would say is if there is an individual who is worried about the quality of the data that has been provided, in the absence of a system based solution, which we would have to really take on notice and think seriously about, individuals should not be afraid to contact the office and we will see what information we can provide them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you, that’s very good. Because of the almost unique US, it’s almost unique, I think there’s one other country, with practising citizenship-based taxation, FATCA reporting includes reporting on the Australian income of Australian residents which is taxable in Australia, and for which the US must grant a foreign income tax offset, foreign tax credit in American terminology. This is not income that is being hidden from the US tax authorities. Has the ATO expressed to their US counterparts their support of a same country exception to FATCA as recommended by the US taxpayer advocate?
[Mrakovic] We’ll take that on notice.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. FATCA has some exemptions to reporting that are not included in the similar Common Reporting Standard, CRS. Under FATCA, accounts under $50,000, US dollars, and accounts held at local client-based banks, are exempt from being reported to the IRS. How is the ATO ensuring that these exemptions are being honoured and that data is not being over-reported to the IRS? Because, as I said, slightest mistakes cause Australian citizens, dual citizens, Americans resident in Australia, enormous grief with the IRS, and they’re innocent. The IRS is not innocent, the Australians are innocent.
So, Senator, I will take details of that on notice, but our reporting is, we are very aware of those rules, those exemptions from FATCA. I’ll take on notice, but I would hope to be able to provide comfort to you, Senator, that we do not report unnecessary accounts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
[Chair] Last couple of questions Senator Roberts.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I’ve got two more. Thanks Chair. Will a Privacy Impact Assessment be conducted with regard to FATCA reporting?
[Mrakovic] Senator we will take that on notice?
[Reinhardt] No, I can.
[Mrakovic] Oh, you can?
Sam Reinhardt, First Assistant Secretary for Corporate and International Tax. So privacy, as part of the original RIS that was undertaken for the 2000, 2014 legislation, privacy issues were considered as part of that. And, in the regional legislation, the RIS Explains that and outline what was done in that, in that effect. And that was that the privacy concerns were addressed by creating a domestic regulatory environment. Now I understand, Senator, you’ve raised some issues that the ATO and Treasury have undertaken to get back to you on that, in relation to the current application.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so, they’ve been sent? Because we received a whole flurry of questions, responses to questions on notice, at the end of last week.
So I think the responses to the question on notice, as you say, have been provided. The RIS a publicly available document and that outlines the privacy issues that were addressed as part of the original legislation.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. What work has been done to verify that FATCA reporting is proportionate, and maybe the Minister can comment on this, is proportionate to the benefits of reporting to the respective governments of Australia and to the United States? I’m thinking of sovereignty issues. The fact that shareholders of banks will lose, because as I understand it, if we don’t bend to the US blackmail, then our banks can be taxed at 30%, was it? So that, that’s essentially blackmail. How much has FATCA increased tax revenues and or decreased tax evasion? And how much has the collection of FATCA data increased the risk of data breaches and or identity theft directed at account holders? These are significant issues affecting our citizens.
Senator, there’s some factual questions you asked towards the end of that, which of us officials have info?
[Mrakovic] So Senator, I’m going to take all of those questions on notice, because we’ll see where we can provide you with information. I just note that some of the questions that you are asking go to cost benefit analysis across two countries, kind of thing. And it will be very difficult for us to obviously provide substantive detail on that. But we’re happy to go away and see what information we can provide.
[Chair] Senator Roberts, we are gonna have to leave…
And more generally, Senator, I will take the more generalist question you asked on notice for any observations that the Treasurer may wish to make himself there.
[Malcolm Roberts] There are sovereignty issues. I’m going to have to finish up. There are sovereignty issues, there’s the cost to Australian taxpayers who are now paying pensions to people who’ve been overtaxed in United States. Questions of unfairness. And other countries are now starting to stand up to this and start fighting it.
[Chair] You made your point, Senator Roberts
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much.
