I do not ignore them and have a view not dissimilar to the legislator. Why, because they provide examples in the Act of proof of transaction which comply with section 100. If they didn’t provide examples, I would agree with your opinion, but these examples can’t be ignored and must be taken into account. If they weren’t to be considered, then they would not be examples in the Act.
Furthermore, if one assumes the examples can be ignored, this will result in a substantial number of businesses which can never comply with section 100. These businesses are those which don’t meet governments/GST turnover threshold criteria for being issued an ABN. The government can refuse issuing a ABN on these grounds…or cancel an ABN if a business does not achieve the turnover threshold (I know because it happened to an ABN I held in the past). If they don’t have an ABN, they also won’t have a ACN. Automatically the ACL ensures, through its drafting, these businesses are on non-compliance with the proof of transaction provisions. So, these businesses are open to compliance action under the Act as they can’t meet the ABN/ACN requirements for a proof of transaction. This is not the intent of these provisions and why complying examples have been provided.
I would suggest that the government/regulators know that non-cash form of payments such as cards payments, tracing back to the business is very easy to do.
Cash is different as tracing is more difficult, but again, there are many small businesses which don’t have ABN/ACN and are likely to accept cash (small food vendors, market stalls, small home businesses etc) and why hand written receipts without such information would suffice.
Proof of Transaction/receipts under ACL are different to Tax Invoices under the Tax legislation and have different roles/purposes. One would see from time to time receipts marked with something like ‘This is not a tax invoice’ which demonstrates they are not the same thing. A credit card receipt commonly shows such wording (our own business ones do).
The ATO won’t be interested in a complaint about proof of transaction under the ACL, likewise the ACCC for tax invoice non-compliances under tax legislation. It isn’t their jurisdiction to deal with such matters.
@AnnoyedConsumer should take up their complaint with IGA head office as they should be conveniently issuing a legible itemised receipt when asked at the point of sale. Issuing a hard to read/poor quality itemised receipt and then expect a customer to wait some time for a better quality computer printed receipt is unacceptable and unreasonable. I would be severely annoyed if they decided to take the literal interpretation of the Act and say come back in 5-6-7 days to collect it, which they rightfully could. This likewise would be an unreasonable expectation for the problem at hand.
The focus from the OP is simple despite terminology of ‘transaction receipt’ or ‘tax invoice’.
What the OP seems to want is a legible tax invoice despite the terminology used. Since he cannot seem to get one from a disinterested merchant the ATO might be interested, or not. An ATO query as time wasting as it may appear could encourage them to fix their printer which is the crux of the problem.
While that can be done as ‘not a tax invoice’ I punt all of your and my grocery dockets are tax invoices presented to us on payment, or on request. Transaction receipts? Might or might not excepting when needing proof of purchase for the ACL or proof of payment.
That would have been my personal approach. Referencing it as a tax invoice problem could add gravity, or not but also recognising IGAs are independent businesses so they might or might not be interested in what at the end of the day is understood to be a printer problem leading to a customer’s inconvenience.
They are tax invoices because businesses don’t want to have two different systems, one under the ACL and one under tax laws. This is the requirements for tax invoices, which is different in many ways to proof of transaction or receipts under the ACL.
A tax invoice will meet proof of transaction/receipt under the ACL, but a proof of transaction/receipt under the ACL may not meet the requirements under the tax system.
As indicated above, a credit/debit card receipt or statement showing the purchase meets the requirements under the ACL, but does not meet tax invoice requirements under the taxation legislation.
The ACL requirements is about proving a purchase/transaction has occurred for rights under the ACL. A tax invoice under taxation legislation is about dealing with GST reporting. They shouldn’t be confused or though as being the same.
Yes, like many businesses, IGA issues a tax invoice to cover both the ACL and tax law requirements. They could choose two different systems, but it would be an administering nightmare for IGA and its customers as it would require customers to know exactly what they are after and its purpose and for IGA to issue the correct document.
It is also worth noting that legibility for tax reporting purposes is critical. Prints in thermal paper, which is commonly used by many retailers, can pose issues over time as they can fade of damaged through handling and storage. A business needs to consider how to keep such records in good condition over time - possibly done by electronic scans.
This statement is not correct. The wording of Paragraphs 100(4)(b) and 100(4)(c) states that those paragraphs are only relevant if the supplier holds an ABN and/or an ACN.
Not true. You are entitled to an ABN if you carry on an enterprise, without the turnover having to reach the general threshold for compulsory GST registration. You may be getting confused with the requirement to also have an ABN if you are required to register for GST.
ABN registrations may be cancelled for reasons including when the applicant was not carrying on an enterprise, ceased an enterprise or failed to lodge documents indicating that the enterprise was still ongoing.
What you have identified is the very poor wording of the mentioned legislation i.e. you can meet the requirements under the notes section but fail to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraphs.
I totally agree. The examples seem to contradict with the above provisions, but possibly not the original intent of the Act/provision. One would need to go back to the explanatory notes to determine the intent…where it possible the examples have come from (it is also possible they might have originated from case law). The apparent contradiction could be a drafting error… E.g. examples included at a later date without considering impact on relevant provisions.
Also in a perfect world, there would be consistency and simplification across all legislation…such that the provisions of/requirements under the ACL and tax laws for a receipt/proof of transaction/tax invoice were the same. The ACL could also be expanded to include other records acceptable for proof of purchase, like it has in the existing examples and widely accepted, which would also suffice to exercise one’s rights under the ACL.
I have experienced the machinery of government and quickly came to the realisation of every department doing their own thing and the left hand working without considering the right.
While off the original topic and in relation to ABN applications and cancellations, we have experienced more stringent requirements to demonstrate the need for an ABN in recent years. Both with an ABN being cancelled (ongoing inability to meet GST turnover threshold - had it for about a decade and had very low turnover) and during an application. It appears the days of getting and keeping an ABN(s) easily (without any scrutiny) and for just in case might be over. Possibly not a bad thing.
Edit…this is the first page of the ABN application process which indicates scrutiny now occurs for applications
These sections are also poorly drafted as it provides only two scenarios, that being when a business has an ABN, an ABN is to be reported, and where a business doesn’t have an ABN but has an ACN, the ACN is to be reported. As outlined there is a third scenario where a business neither has an ABN or ACN. It is ambiguous to what is reported in such case, if anything. There are many businesses under the GST threshold which have neither.
Whilst (a) includes an identifier of the supplier, this may not be sufficient to track down a supplier if one needs to persue rights under the ACL. One would expect contact details to be included as well. Contact details aren’t required.
The whole section isn’t terribly satisfactory nor certain.
I have had similar issues with receipts from those McDonalds kiosks, many are faulty, in that they have no paper rolls in them, they print only partial details, they chew up receipts. Most of if not all are issues that arise from poor store maintenance of the machines. Even over the counter receipts can be less than adequate in quality, I don’t think that IGA stores are alone in that some stores no matter what business brand have less than satisfactory maintenance practices.
The problem is with the particular store where the inadequate quality receipt is provided from, and a written complaint to the store owner/manager plus written complaints to Fair Trading and the ACCC (with CCs to the store) are one way to try and get the issue addressed. Another way can be to provide factual social media feedback about the store (including photos of the receipt/receipts in question). When making social and therefore public comment, it is very important to keep the information factual and non biased to avoid defamation liability.
I am pretty sure they are obliged to offer a Tax Invoice, not forced to give you one if you don’t want one; I couldnt imagine a rule making a business tie you down and force you to take an invoice, hound you until you agree to take it.
I obviously am one who doesn’t want a receipt regardless how much i spent unless there is a specific need, tax expense or risky fresh produce item.
