Last Friday (6 September), the joint bodies met with the Assistant Treasurer’s office and Treasury to express their concerns over sections 15 and 45 of the determination. While they were “pleased” that the government was open to making the necessary changes, they emphasised that significant work remains and that further consultation is needed.
The joint bodies include the Australian Bookkeepers Association, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, CPA Australia, Financial Advice Association of Australia, Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, Institute of Public Accountants, NTAA, SMSF Association, and The Tax Institute.
They said the proposed amendments will still make the work their members undertake challenging, and further changes are required to make them clear, practical and fair.
“Sharing details about investigations and the mandatory requirement to ‘dob in’ a client need substantial reworking,” the joint bodies said in a statement.
Following the meeting, the Assistant Treasurer’s office committed to providing revised amendments, guidance and explanation to the joint bodies, and an additional round of public consultation.
“However, these amendments will not be finalised and agreed upon before Tuesday’s (10 September) disallowance vote in the Senate. Public consultation is no guarantee the amendments will be changed in a way that is best for our members, their clients and communities,” the statement said.
“Until the changes to the determination are agreed, the joint bodies remain supportive of the disallowance motion proceeding in the Senate on Tuesday, 10 September.”
The joint bodies said that in their current form, the compliance obligations in the determination make the jobs of nearly 72,000 tax and BAS agents challenging and will most likely increase the cost of services to millions of Australians.
“As we’ve been outlining since mid-July, the rules in their current form are an overreach and revised guidance from the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) or an amended explanatory statement will not solve the confusion,” they said.
“This guidance is no replacement for fixing the black letter law.”
