Your shopping cart is empty

In 2014 TAXVINE No 47 (19 December 2014), the ATO responded to feedback from Member 195 about a client whose withholding status was reactivated with their previous remitter status (medium), notwithstanding that changed circumstances meant that they should have had a different remitter status (small). Member 195 was also advised by ATO letter that the status could be changed with a telephone call, but the ATO response acknowledged this was an error on its part.


Member 195, whom we shall now identify as MEMBER 1, responded to the ATO response just before Xmas as follows:

"Firstly, Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to all at TAXVINE and to Members. 

Re PAYGI registration. I understand that it is a legal requirement (according to ATO) that previous remitter status is retained on new application for PAYGW but my response is WHY! Surely, when a business is sold and new data via a new application is provided to the ATO that only 1 casual employed with (maybe) $1,000 PAYGW then the previous status is just not applicable. 

With respect to the letter the ATO posted, in the response the ATO acknowledges its deficiency in stating that contact should be made by telephone but the matter can only be fixed by email or letter. All I can say is 'do what you say, say what you mean' - the letter was probably designed via the co-design process, another gobbledygook/spin explanation by the ATO. 

By the way, I tried to lodge the BAS - 'try' is the apt term - on Sunday (21 December) as I was busy on Monday (22 December). I tried to lodge on Sunday via the pothole but could not log in due to 'Maintenance', ah well, I thought, I would lodge when I got home on Monday night; yep, you guessed it, the pothole was down again. All I can say when I do finally lodge the BAS is that I will be sent late lodgment letters, potential penalties are loomimg and so many more reverse workflows and wasting time including this vent via TAXVINE.

If the ATO had registered the client as a small remitter in the first place in accordance with the application then this would have all been unnecessary.

If we were able to lodge manually, yes, by post, the issue would not exist as the BAS would have been posted to reach the ATO by 21 December.

I did work at the ATO for many years, I do remember 'tax stamps' (an easy way to pay tax), come on ATO, provide the adequate systems that do not require us to get TAX OFFICE RAGE and tear out our hair, rent our clothes etc., we just want it to be efficient and IT IS NOT.


MEMBER 1 has since sent a post script:

"It is now 8 January 2015, I just checked the pothole (yes, it worked this the way, I do believe the pothole is great but incredibly frustrating when down) to see if I had received a reply to my email of 18 November 2014 concerning PAYGW registration downgrade - no advice received as yet!

This 'time wastage' due to an application lodged in October 2014 is just plain hopeless."