MEMBER 223 writes:
"Yesterday I sent the following letter to one of my clients:
'Finally, 07 December 2011, we have received the amended assessment for your 2010 tax year which was originally lodged on 03 August 2010.
As advised we included all the details of the 'Lump Sum in Arrears' on the attachments with the tax return as required by the Tax Office in their publications and still have had to complete the full objection process with the Australian Taxation Office.
This should not have happened and the amount of time and bloody-mindedness by the Taxation Office to get the matter to a resolution was incredible, both, from this office’s aspect and from the Tax Office aspect. When you completed your taxation return according to the requirements of the Tax Office, the bureaucratic process we had to follow to get it finalised was ludicrous, time wasting and expensive – the amount of tax in question was not that significant.
The matter is now concluded and I enclose:
1. First amended assessment 13 May 2011;
2. Statement of Account 16 May 2011;
3. Notice of Objection decision dated 31 Oct 2011
4. Notice of amended assessment dated 05 Dec 2011.
5 Tax Agent Portal Printout from Tax Office indicating all account balances are now zero.'
What is of concern to me is that the ATO service can be along the entire spectrum from Exceptional to Appalling (more weight at the appalling end) - as a former tax officer I am concerned at the loss of 'corporate knowledge' from the ATO and yes, I and many others probably contributed to that loss by leaving. Nonetheless, we seem to be caught in the vice of ATO efficiency (NOT). The amount of time spent on the above matter was incredible and all of it totally unnecessary if the ATO followed their own published material.
Here's to a great Christmas and a much more positive new year with Member Feedback concerning the ATO becoming non-existent due to the ATO fixing itself - we can then "get our teeth" into workcare, offices of state revenue and other bureaucratic agencies thieving our productive time."
MEMBER 224 writes: