Refusing to work with the ATO to resolve compliance matters is the “fastest way to have a non-compliance notice issued” says ATO director of SMSF risks and products Nathan Burgess.
Speaking at the SMSF Association conference last week, Mr Burgess said that while some compliance matters are too serious to avoid a non-compliance notice – such as those subject to wilful intent or extensive issues over an extended period of time – the ATO is trying to avoid handing down penalties through its new approach.
Mr Burgess said the phone calls from the ATO to SMSF trustees are not meant to be “We’ve got you calls”.
“We’re not looking to do it that way, we’re actually trying to avoid a formal audit of review, but in about one in ten funds it just has to be escalated – what I mean by that is during the phone call the person will absolutely refuse to deal with us and that gives us no choice,” he said.
Trustees who refuse to help the ATO resolve the issue or are simply too difficult, he said, are therefore more likely to have their fund made non-complying.
“We know there’s an issue and we’re trying to avoid [it] but we need the [trustee] to say 'Yes, I’m aware of it and we’re working on it',” he said.
Super Sphere director Belinda Aisbett said SMSF accountants and advisers need to ensure the client is fully across what they’ve done wrong and how it has been resolved.
Ms Aisbett said SMSF practitioners need to have a conversation with their client about the issue so that when they receive the call from the tax office they’re actually know what they’re talking about.
“You’ve got to do the right thing by your client and manage their risks – the last thing you want is your client to get all defensive on the line with the tax office and then have [the ATO] escalate it to an audit,” she said.
“If they escalate it to an audit and they confirm a contravention, then they have to issue fines, all because of one phone call, that could have gone a different way.”
Ms Aisbett said while one unit penalty doesn’t seem like a large amount of money, the number of units attached to a contravention can make it very costly for clients.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE SMSF ADVISER BULLETIN
- 22 Sep 2017ASIC permanently bans SMSF property spruikerBy Miranda Brownlee
- 22 Sep 2017Male SMSF investors ‘bigger risk takers’, says reportBy Staff Reporter
- 22 Sep 2017Lawyer flags subdivision trap with downsizer contributionsBy Miranda Brownlee
- 22 Sep 2017ATO urged to address ‘unknowns’ with LRBA reportingBy Miranda Brownlee
- 21 Sep 2017Lost and unclaimed super climbs to $18 billionBy Lara Bullock
- 21 Sep 2017ATO to release further guidance on reservesBy Miranda Brownlee
- view all
- Male SMSF investors ‘bigger risk takers’, says report
Male SMSF members tend to hold a greater share of assets in higher risk investments including domestic shares and property in comparison to ...read more
- Lawyer flags subdivision trap with downsizer contributions
SMSF trustees planning to make downsizer contributions have been warned that if a property has been subject to a partial sale in the 10 yea...read more
- ATO urged to address ‘unknowns’ with LRBA reporting
The ATO has been asked to provide further clarity around the events based reporting requirements for LRBA repayments, with the new requireme...read more
- view all