ATO compliance on “schemes”

Grahame Allen • May 17, 2020

The ATO has released its practical administrative approach to businesses claiming the JobKeeper payment. Generally, it notes that it would only apply compliance resources to what would amount to a "scheme" in terms of the entity and its external operating environment. For example, if an entity's business has not been significantly affected by external environmental factors beyond its control and/or the payments are in excess of those that would maintain pre-existing employment relationships. The integrity measure contained in the JobKeeper payment legislation ensures entities that enter into contrived schemes do not obtain a payment they would otherwise not be entitled to. It is aimed at contrived and artificial arrangements that technically satisfy the eligibility requirements but have been implemented for the sole or dominant purpose of accessing the JobKeeper payment. Where that is the case, the ATO has the power to determine these entities were never entitled to the payment. In addition, it will also be able to recover any overpayments and has the power to impose significant penalties and interest. To determine whether or not a certain arrangement is a "scheme", the ATO will largely consider the substance of the outcome achieved rather than the type of arrangement entered into. According to the ATO, some examples of schemes to obtain the JobKeeper payment which may pique its interest include: company deferring the making of supplies/payments of cash/issuing of invoices to third parties to lower the projected GST turnover in order to meet the decline in turnover threshold; company bringing forward the making of supplies to artificially lower the GST turnover in a particular quarter to obtain the JobKeeper payment; company transferring assets that are leased to third parties to a related party to reduce GST turnover; a group of entities in which the service company reduces the service fee charged to the operating company to meet the decline in turnover test (depending on the circumstances of the reduction); a group of entities in which the service company stands down employees/reduces their work hours to the operating company resulting in reduced service fees to meet the decline in turnover test; parent company of a corporate group that reduces management fees or manipulates the timing of the management fee. Whilst it is not an exhaustive list, it does provide a useful guide in what the ATO considers to be a scheme. In particular, there are two examples which points out that a reduced service fee within a group of companies does not necessarily mean that there has been a scheme. From the ATO's point of view where an entity has been significantly affected by the external operating environment that is beyond their control and applies for the JobKeeper payment in response to the impact (satisfying the criteria), it is unlikely to devote compliance resources to those cases.

Navigating complexities of crypto investments: SMSFs

By Grahame Allen • 03 May, 2024
The digital currency landscape continues to be treacherous terrain for Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) trustees, with a growing number of reports indicating significant losses due to a variety of factors, including scams, theft, and collapsed trading platforms. As the allure of high returns from crypto investments tempts many, the ATO is emphasizing the need for increased vigilance and education to safeguard superannuation benefits. The ATO has identified several causes of crypto investment losses: Trustees are being duped by fraudulent crypto exchanges, which promise high returns but are designed to siphon off investors' funds. Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting crypto accounts, hacking into them to steal valuable cryptocurrencies. A number of crypto trading platforms, particularly those based overseas, have collapsed, leaving investors with significant losses. Some trustees find themselves permanently locked out of their crypto accounts due to forgotten passwords, losing access to their investments. Scammers impersonating ATO officials are tricking individuals into revealing wallet details under the guise of investigating tax evasion, leading to losses. The ATO is urging trustees to educate themselves on the potential pitfalls of crypto investing. Resources such as the ACCC's Scamwatch and ASIC's MoneySmart provide valuable information on recognising and avoiding scams. Moreover, the ATO highlights that many crypto assets are not classified as financial products, meaning that the platforms facilitating their trade often lack regulation. This increases the risk of loss without recourse. For those SMSF trustees faced with the loss of a digital wallet, the first step is to determine whether the loss is simply one of lost access or if there is loss of evidence of ownership. In either case, meticulous record-keeping is the key to navigating the situation. The ATO allows for the claim of a capital loss if trustees lose their crypto private key or if their cryptocurrency is stolen. However, to substantiate such a claim, trustees must provide comprehensive evidence, including the date of acquisition and loss of the private key, the associated wallet address, the cost to acquire the lost or stolen cryptocurrency, and the amount present in the wallet at the time of loss. Additionally, proof that the wallet was under the trustee’s control, such as transactions linked to their identity or hardware that stores the wallet, is essential. It is important to note that while some may still consider cryptocurrency to be private and anonymous, and may baulk at reporting gains made, the reality is much different. The ATO has the ability to track cryptocurrency transactions through electronic trails, in particular where it intersects with the real word. In addition, through data matching protocols, the ATO requires cryptocurrency exchanges to furnish them with information on transactions, making it possible to trace and tax crypto trades. Trustees are therefore encouraged to report all transactions. For SMSFs that run businesses and accept cryptocurrency as payment, the approach to accounting is akin to dealing with any other asset, the value of the cryptocurrency needs to be recorded in Australian dollars as a part of the business’ ordinary income. In addition, where business items are purchased using crypto, including trading stock, a deduction is allowed based on the market value of the item acquired. SMSFs that run businesses should also be aware that there may be GST issues with transacting in crypto.

Trust reporting changes from 1 July 2024

By Grahame Allen • 26 Apr, 2024
Changes to simplify reporting for trustees and beneficiaries are commencing from 1 July 2024 as a part of the Modernisation of Trust Administration Systems (MTAS) project. From that date, labels in the statement of distribution, which is a part of the trust tax return, will be modified, a new schedule will be introduced for all trust beneficiary types, and new data validations will be added. Looking at each of these changes in depth, from the 2023-24 income year and onward, four new capital gains tax (CGT) labels have been added into the trust tax return statement of distribution. These changes will enhance the ability of trustees to appropriately notify beneficiaries of their entitlement to income and support the calculation of the CGT amount in individual tax returns. The ATO recommends that all beneficiaries obtain copies of the trust statement of distribution as it relates to their individual entitlements. This will allow beneficiaries to include the correct information in the new trust income schedule. The trust income schedule instructions will demonstrate how the information on the tax statement provided should be reported on the trust income schedule. This also includes trust income from a managed fund. It should be noted that beneficiaries will still need to complete existing trust income labels in beneficiary income tax returns as this new trust income schedule will not replace any existing trust income labels. Individual beneficiaries who lodge via MyTax will receive prompts about the additional reporting of trust income. In addition to these reporting changes, the ATO has reminded trustees that where beneficiaries’ entitlements reflected in trust resolutions are subsequently changed by either arguing the resolution as invalid, defective or made at a different time, it should be notified as an affected party where the change triggers tax consequences. For context, to ensure that beneficiaries are presently entitled to trust income, discretionary trusts are usually required to make a resolution by 30 June of any specific income year. For those specifically entitled to a capital gain, trustees of discretionary trusts must make a resolution in respect of that capital gain by 31 August following the income year in which the capital gain is made. According to the ATO, high-risk behaviours by trustees can include altering trust resolutions after tax returns are lodged, failing to inform the ATO of errors in trust deeds or their administration, and making decisions that affect the tax liabilities of a trust, such as early vesting, without notifying the ATO. These actions can lead to disputes over entitlements, amended assessments, and the potential for tax fraud or evasion charges if the issues are not promptly and transparently addressed with the ATO. The ATO notes that it is critical for trustees of trusts to maintain open and honest communication with the ATO, as failure to do so may lead to serious consequences, including the possibility of amended tax assessments for fraud or evasion (which are not limited by the standard four-year review period) and the imposition of significant penalties. The need for trustees to promptly advise the ATO of any mistakes in the trust deed or in the administration of the trust to prevent legal and financial complications cannot be overstated.

Old ATO debts: IGTO weighs in

By Grahame Allen • 19 Apr, 2024
In response to the ATO's recent actions on re-activating or off-setting old debts, the Commonwealth Ombudsman/ACT Ombudsman, and the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO) have jointly issued new guidelines aimed at improving how Australians are notified about government debts. The publication outlines principles designed to ensure that the process of debt notification is handled with transparency, clarity and sensitivity towards impacted individuals. Mr Iain Anderson, serving as both Commonwealth Ombudsman and ACT Ombudsman, together with Ms. Karen Payne, Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman, emphasized the importance of government agencies adopting a compassionate and principled approach when dealing with debt notification. "While the law may require agencies to take certain actions, it is crucial that these actions are taken in a manner that minimizes distress," they stated. The guidelines propose five key principles for the ATO and other government departments to consider when conducting programs: Transparency and Accountability - agencies should communicate clearly why the debt has arisen, fostering trust and confidence in the process. Clarity on the Debt's Origin - individuals should understand the source and nature of the debt, tailored to the recipient's circumstances. Clear Pathways for Review - information on how to request a review of the debt, apply for waivers, and arrange repayments should be readily accessible, ensuring individuals understand their rights and options. Accessible Support - contacts for further assistance must be provided, acknowledging that people may have additional questions or need personalized support. Commitment to Improvement - the process of debt recovery should be viewed as an opportunity to learn and enhance future practices based on oversight recommendations and past experiences. Also noted was the significance of reflecting on past interactions and the recommendations from oversight bodies to continually elevate how agencies engage with the community regarding sensitive matters such as debt recovery. Taxpayers who have an unresolved complaint or dispute with the ATO are able to lodge a dispute with the IGTO to receive independent assurance. IGTO will conduct an independent investigation of the actions and decisions that are subject of the dispute and can help taxpayers better understand the actions taken by the ATO and/or independently verify whether shortcomings exist in ATO’s action or decision which should be rectified, as well as identifying other options taxpayers may have to resolve their concerns. For example, in one case study, the IGTO assisted a taxpayer to verify whether the full amount of general interest charge had been remitted on their tax debts. In another, after a taxpayer’s original request for the Commissioner to exercise his discretion to advance their refund instead of offsetting against their tax debt due to imminent risk of homelessness was denied, the taxpayer lodged a dispute with the IGTO. Following urgent discussions between the IGTO and senior ATO officers, the ATO reversed their decision, and the taxpayer received his refund. The IGTO can also intervene in cases where the ATO has used family assistance payments to offset tax debts. According to another one of IGTO’s case studies, the ATO used a Centrelink Family Assistance (CFA) payment to offset a tax debt that a taxpayer had. At the time, the taxpayer was unemployed and supported two minors along with an ageing parent and relied on the payment. After IGTO intervention, the ATO agreed to refund the offset recognising it was not appropriate to pursue debt collection given the circumstances. Taxpayers interested in lodging a dispute with the IGTO should note that they must have first attempted to resolve the complaint directly with the ATO unless special circumstances exist. Those that remain unsatisfied with the ATO response should then lodge a formal complaint with the ATO for review. If taxpayers are still unsatisfied with the outcome of the ATO review, they can then lodge a dispute with the IGTO for an independent investigation either online or via post or phone.
More Posts
Share by: