Your shopping cart is empty

Search Journal Articles

MEMBER 101 writes, in response to Member 99's comments in last week's TAXVINE - see 2013 TAXVINE No 18 (17 May 2013) - about receiving an information matching system letter due to the ATO's inability to add up and subtract amounts relating to capital gains and capital losses where the capital gains had been derived through a trust:
"It appears that the ATO is on a fishing trip in relation to trust distributions. Apart from Member 99's issue, I have received a letter advising that amounts that were distributed to a minor beneficiary in a testamentary trust (ie tax assessed to the trustee at normal rates) was omitted by the parent in their personal tax return. The trust tax return was very clear. Not sure if the ATO even read it?"

MEMBER 102 writes:
"Following up Member 99's comments on the IMS discrepancy letter issuing for a capital gains distribution from the Family Trust and not taking into account any client carry forward capital loss, I also had one. I suggest it is another example of the lack of care or consideration by senior officers in the ATO to take into account their actions on TAGs. It goes back to the fact that the ATO should have both the expertise and the ability to get things right without loading up TAGs.  
I also got an FBT statement of account after lodging an FBT return, that is helpful, but the statement did not have a Payment Advice on the bottom, so I have to go onto the Pothole and get it. Why has 'someone' conveniently decided to issue a FBT Statement of Account after lodging but failed to have a payment slip for the client.  This and so many examples seems to suggest the mantra in the ATO, 'if it is a bit difficult then, don’t worry, the TAG will sort it for us'.  I suppose that is why the Commissioner refers to TAGs as valuable."

Search All Articles
Eg. TD 2005/D52 ALL words EXACT phrase WITHOUT words Journals Date range