Your shopping cart is empty

MEMBER 102 writes:
"I notice over the last week 3 different admissions by the ATO of ‘System errors’.
Annual PAYG Instalment Notices issued incorrectly, Division 293 assessments and the timely 'The ATO has acknowledge that there are errors with information shown on the Tax Agent Pothole...(return not necessary for new entities)'.
At least there is some acknowledgement of errors.
I wish we could brush off our errors as ‘system errors’ that will be corrected with 'anticipated future developments of information technology'. Nothing wrong with the ATO wordsmithing."
MEMBER 103 writes:
"Why does the ATO constantly stuff up and yet we receive a simple cop out statement saying 'sorry for any confusion'. I know who the confused one is????
They cannot get it right no matter how hard they try because [there is no accountability].
No compassion or reasonableness or reduction in FTLs and GIC?
MEMBER 104 writes:
"I recall in the early 1970s, I was involved in implementing new fangled computer programs written in house in one of our biggest companies – big bucks were thrown at the analysis, design and implementation but one small bit of advice I came across was 'if you want to test a system properly, give it to the person who hates it the most and if it is breakable, they will break it'.
From the tone of the feedback on ATO stuffups with Annual PAYG Instalment Notices, pothole availability and performance and myriad other problems which seem to stem from little more than the failure to test properly or look at test results, it would seem to me that the ATO is trying to either take advantage of that little bit of advice or are trying to assemble a very large pool of testers!"