An update.
1 Like
I will be cheering when ācould beā becomes āhave beenā.
3 Likes
I guess it is not important like pursuing persons who accidently received a few dollars incorrectly paid for JobKeeper or JobSeeker.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick here.
This is not an ATO scam. This is a scam by certain persons who reside in the Kimberley. No matter how lax, incompetent, whatever the ATO may have been ā¦ first and foremost the blame rests with those persons, the scammers. They acted deliberately, intentionally, knowingly to defraud the taxpayer. (As such, you canāt compare that with any accidental overpayment.)
Also the article specifically declined to comment on the state of their investigations into the promoter of this scheme in order not to compromise the investigation (e.g. tip off the promoter), which seems reasonable. Not that the promoter can get on a flight to Rio. LOL.
As for pursuing the scammers who benefited from this scheme, the ATO is cagey (as you imply). This is in part a privacy consideration and in part because well it has all been spent on erm āsecond-hand cars and shopping tripsā and apart from the formality of raising a debt, I donāt think the taxpayer can expect to see much back. 
4 Likes
I did not say that it was.
I merely posted it in the most suitable existing topic I could find.
1 Like
Maybe itās time for the topic title to change to be more reflective of the overall subject matter.
2 Likes
āAsk and thou shalt receiveā?
2 Likes
And another scam by the ATO to destroy peopleās lives.
And what the ATO should be doing.
1 Like
There appears to be more behind this story that that posted by the ABC. The ABC touches in this by the statement:
In December 2018, Helen reached a confidential settlement with the ATO.
I wonder who the settlement was in favour of and what the outcome of investigation was. The article does raise the issue that the ATO has a history of being very heavy handed in its investigations and recouping any monies owed. This is something which should be addressed by the government. Heavy handed possibly is reasonable if there is intentional and deliberate tax avoidance, but during an investigation with a willing taxpayer (business or individual), there should be processes to work collectively to a mutual or satisfactory outcome.
3 Likes
And, since the ATO was negotiating on behalf of you and me (as taxpayers), why is it even legal to have a confidential settlement?
I wouldnāt read too much into whom the settlement was in favour of. After the ATO has ground you down for 6 years and ground you into poverty, you would probably agree to anything.
The article makes the point though about the reversal of the burden of proof. Even in cases of intentional and deliberate tax avoidance, the burden of proof should be on the ATO. That is, you should have the right to be presumed to have done the right thing unless and until the ATO satisfies a court otherwise. That is not currently the case.
3 Likes
Not before time.
2 Likes
What are the chances of it getting into law?
2 Likes
Just add the recommendations of this commitee to the large pile of other tax reform studies that have been ignored over the years.
I can just see the response from the ATO.
If our ability to go after tax avoiders, evaders, and fraudsters is reduced, then expect a large reduction in money into your Government coffers. Perhaps you may need to increase taxes to make up the difference. Or cut your pork-barreling budget.
ābut terrorists, but pedophilesā
Makes no sense but is the sort of rubbish rhetoric that you expect from government.
Thereās a realistic chance that nothing will happen in time for the next election campaign, and then all bets are off. Conveniently forgotten about. Change of government. Drowned out by the noise.
