iscoverThe accounting bodies are weighing in on the Tax Ombudsman’s review into the ATO’s management of GIC remission, with an overwhelming call for change.
‘ATO treats tax agents adversarially’: CA ANZ, IPA call for improvement of ATO GIC remission
10 November 2025
•
10 minute read
CA ANZ and the Institute of Public Accountants (IPA) have submitted submissions to the Tax Ombudsman, Ruth Owen, on her review of the ATO’s management of remission of general interest charge (GIC).
In its submission to the Ombudsman, IPA noted it had received various feedback from its members regarding widespread discontent in relation to decisions and inconsistencies behind denied remission requests, lack of empathy and compassion by the ATO, as well as a significant lack of transparency and communication.
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
IPA’s submission, written by its senior tax adviser, Tony Greco, noted the ATO’s approach to GIC remission should be considered in light of the legislative change denying deductibility of GIC, which commenced on 1 July 2025.
“While the policy and legislative position is outside the control of the ATO and the Tax Ombudsman, we encourage recommendations to be made in a context where going forward, unremitted GIC will cost taxpayers significantly more than previously,” Greco said.
“That is, the amount of unremitted GIC that represents a proportionate consequence for a taxpayers’ late tax payment now differs to what it was prior to 1 July 2025.”
Greco linked this to the fact that while deliberate non-compliance or negligence should always be met with appropriate consequences, it had become more imperative for taxpayers and advisers to be confident in the treatment they received, being both fair and consistent.
In conjunction with this, Greco said taxpayers also needed to be confident that if a request for remission was denied, the reasons for it needed to be transparent and reasonable.
IPA acknowledged the ATO was concurrently reviewing and updating its principles framework underlying its approach to certain taxpayer concessions, including interest remission.
This was in addition to the ATO cracking down on its debt collection and interest remission approach.
However, Greco shared that the accounting body was concerned that the current changes of administrative approach to GIC remission, along with the imminent changes arising from the ATO’s principles review and the Ombudsman’s review, may confuse taxpayers and practitioners.
Based on this, IPA proposed the Tax Ombudsman should consider urging the ATO to ensure changes were harmonised and complementary, comprehensively communicate changes with taxpayers and practitioners, promptly update and expand all ATO website and legal database guidance, as well as recommend relevant alternatives.
The body also proposed that the Ombudsman recommend to the ATO that it update the training of all of its relevant staff to ensure they were up to date with the latest changes in administrative policy, treat taxpayers and practitioners with appropriate empathy and compassion where appropriate, as well as apply decision-making criteria consistently and fairly.
CA ANZ also made a submission to the Ombudsman and called for greater consistency and transparency in how the ATO managed GIC remissions.
Written by CA ANZ tax, superannuation and financial services leader, Susan Franks, the submission said 66 per cent of CA ANZ members supported the Tax Ombudsman reviewing the remission of GIC as a high priority.
According to Franks, CA ANZ members wanted improvement in the remission request process in the three key areas of the ATO providing clear and transparent guidance, consistent application of the ATO guidelines and the ATO providing clear, complete and relevant explanations for remission decisions.
In terms of clear guidance, or lack thereof, Franks said it would need to contain a range of common scenarios which were holistic, detailed the event and how the event impacted the taxpayer, as well as how the taxpayer would have paid or lodged on time and the steps they should have taken.
“Transparent guidance would also include the ATO policy when assessing remission applications, such as the criteria or factors, flowcharts or steps, that leads to a full remission, partial remission or no remission,” she said.
“The scenarios would also evaluate the facts against the criterion and explain the weighting of those factors. Having examples which show when the ATO is likely to remit GIC, rather than when GIC remission is denied are required.”
Franks added that one of the biggest frustrations members experienced was the ATO applying its guidelines inconsistently, as well as expressing a deterioration in the relationship between tax agents and the ATO.
“Members feel that the ATO treats tax agents in an adversarial manner, rather than an essential part of the tax system who act as gatekeepers and alleviate some of the administrative burden of the ATO,” she said.
“This attitude is reflected where some members find that clients have better outcomes requesting remission compared to an agent. To this end, we appreciate the Tax Ombudsman’s efforts to recognise the importance of tax agents, elevate their standing within the ATO and to encourage the ATO to work collaboratively with agents.”
Tags:
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
