With the 30 November deadline for director ID applications now less than two weeks away, the ATO has outlined what approach Australian Business Registry Services (ABRS) will take in relation to non-compliance with the director ID obligations.
In comments provided to SMSF Adviser, the ATO stated that the “Registrar will take a reasonable approach when enforcing the director ID obligations, reserving most enforcement actions for more egregious cases of non-compliance”.
The ATO also reminded directors that where they are unable to meet the transitional timeframe to apply, they can request an extension of time via a form available on abrs.gov.au.
It also outlined options for directors experiencing difficulties in applying for their director ID through the digital application process.
“[While] the Australian Business Registry Services (ABRS) website has been optimised for accessibility, ABRS recognises that that some directors may have difficulty applying for their director ID through the digital application process,” the ATO stated.
“These directors are being supported with the option to apply over the phone or by paper.”
Applicants applying by a paper application will need to provide certified identity documents, the ATO explained.
“Applicants applying over the phone will need their identity documents with them during the call to be verified over the phone and will need to answer some questions based on details the ATO knows about them,” it said.
If directors are unable to apply through any of the digital, telephone or paper channels, the ATO advised them to contact ABRS to discuss their situation further.
Earlier this week, the ABRS released a draft legislative instrument to exclude persons who have ceased to hold any role as a ‘director or alternate director acting in that capacity’ (directors) prior to 1 December 2022 from the obligation to apply for a director ID.
“Whilst this legislative instrument remains draft and is subject to final determination, directors who have recently resigned from their director roles are not expected to apply for a director ID,” the ATO stated.
ABRS 2022/D1 sets out changes to the “eligible officer” rules that previously required anyone who was a director immediately prior to 4 April 2021 (when the rule applied), or who became a director between then and 31 October 2021, to obtain an ID number by the end of this month.
Anyone becoming a director after 31 October 2021 was obliged to get an ID number first, so the November 30 deadline does not apply.
The draft legislation now excludes anyone who was a director prior to 31 October 2021 but who resigned on or before the 30 November deadline.
Part of the dystopian social credit score system the WEF is pushing for world wide? It seems our Government are going to push this agenda regardless of whether or not the people want it.
Paper application forms were available NAT 75329‑10.2021.
My question to ASIC/ABRS: Why in heavens name did they not send the information with the Company Annual Return. Every company would have received one during the 12 month registration period, unless they were winding up. The simple solutions are often the best.
But now the ABRS are sending paper forms in the post to directors that have not yet got an ID. Where is this being reported or communicated to the industry? We are all frantically trying to assist clients to apply online, with no paper form available, & with 2 weeks to go the ABRS starts sending paper application forms out with a “Note” that the applications “may take up to 56 business days to process”. Why weren’t the forms available from the outset & why didn’t the ABRS mail them out with adequate time for them to be completed & returned? And where is the media reporting on this development???
Two points there — paper forms would have made it substantially easier to get the ID and secondly if my firm took 56 days to handle client requests we would be out of business . An example of public service efficiency and productivity .
The cover letter with the paper form has “We may take up to 56 days to finalise your application.” [b]but[/b][u][/u] the last lines of the actual form are “[b]Note:[/b] We will send your director ID to the postal address on your application. It may take up to 56 business days for your application to be processed. Don’t lodge another application during this time. We will contact you if we need more information.” Which is it? Either way, it’s too long, but at least be consistent.
Why did 99.99% of Australian directors have to go through this tortuous process, just so ASIC could clean out their database of 0.01% of alleged fake directions who probably dont even exist?
Imposing this high tech only application process on elderly directors (many of whom are SMSF trustee company directors) who don’t have smartphones or are PC literate was the stupidest thing I have seen a Govt agency come up with in 35 years. It was 1% ignorance & 99% arrogance!
Not trusting ASIC agents and tax agents and cutting service providers out of assisting clients was the 2nd stupidest thing I have seen in 35 years. Yet we will get the blame and lose clients over it.
As for paper forms, the ABRS website still only offers paper forms to directors living overseas so the Registrar doesn’t seem to know what it going on either. As for phone applications, I suggest the Registrar try calling when he has a few hours to spare.
We all know how aggressive and intractable ASIC is with deadlines and it’s robo-penalties. When they start issuing fines and this becomes a political mess, I hope the ASIC and ABR commissioners are prepared to resign for presiding over such a debacle!
Well said Bruno . I’m a semi retired older FCA and struggling to complete this registration . Might have to seek family assistance ( a tax agent ) to finalize the registration for my wife and myself if that’s allowed under the rules