Your shopping cart is empty

Search Journal Articles

MEMBER 97 writes:

“In the 2010 year we had 3 cases of ‘fraud’ taxpayers that had the 12-week wait letter. In each case when we lodged, the PAYG Summary was not on Prefill, the refund was over $5,000, thus ATO thinks it is a fraudulent PAYG Summary. The facts: PAYG Summaries all valid, no adjustment to deductions or other items.

In this 2011 year we had 6 cases, again in each one when we lodged, a PAYG Summary declared was not in Prefill and there was a large refund. The facts: PAYG Summaries all valid, no WRE adjusted, no rental adjustments, no adjustments, nil, zilch (one is at objection stage, because a letter was ignored/lost and all rental items disallowed, with full documents for all deductions but still no decision, clearly expect no adjustments).

So how did the ATO go around last year saying they adjust 70-80% of these ‘fraudulent’ ITRs?

Two years in a row they impose the same audit selection, producing very dubious results.

The basis of this case selection is clearly flawed, so can we expect the ATO to learn from this?

Or do we go through the same or similar thing next year, with no improvements in the way the ATO handles the matter?”


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