Self Employed Australia

"Everyone needs an Advocate"

“Everyone needs an Advocate”

Taxation

Fearing the truth – Australia’s government institutions – ATO

by

Richard-BoyleIn April 2018 we were intimately involved in the production of the ABC Four Corners program ‘Mongrel Bunch of Bastards’. The program exposed evidence of the ATO’s abuse of small business people. The program brought real ‘grunt’ to our campaign to reform the ATO. And we have to say that in our observation the ATO has improved since then. There’s still much to be done, but it is better.

Included in the Four Corners program was the profiling of Richard Boyle. Richard was a case officer in the ATO who exposed ATO abuse of small business people and he explained this on the program. The consequence of this is that Richard was charged and is being prosecuted. Richard has become one of Australia’s most high-profile whistleblowers. He faces a lengthy jail sentence if convicted.

In the production of the program, and subsequently, SEA has had considerable dealings with Richard. In July 2022, SEA released a statement joining the call for the charges against Richard to be dropped. In the statement we explain our dealings with Richard as well as our view of him and his whistleblower actions. We said:

…in our view the charges against Richard must be considered within the ambit of Richard’s whistleblower activity as it exposed malpractice within the ATO.

…Richard’s whistleblowing action (and the activities related to that) were done in order to protect taxpayers from garnishee activity by the ATO which breached the ATO’s own procedural requirements.

In all our dealings with Richard we have found him to be a person of the highest ethical and moral standards.

Our statement provides the full details of the independent investigations into Richard’s whistleblowing. Those investigations detail the maladministration of the ATO at the time and, in our view, effectively support the propriety of Richard’s exposure of the truth.

This Monday (18 September 2023) the ABC 7.30 Report ran a full segment on Richard Boyle. This time they interviewed a small business taxpayer (Dirk Fielding) who Richard had helped in 2017 and who, through the ATO’s actions, has been used to generate Richard’s prosecution. Dirk refers to the prosecution as ‘insanity’.

Further, last week some 30 MPs and Senators joined the call to have the charges against Richard dropped. We again join that call and reiterate the reasons for the dropping of the charges as we explained in our statement of July 2022.

We give evidence on Tax Fairness solution to UK Parliamentary committee/group

by

UK-parliamentFor over a decade we’ve been campaigning for fairness and for rule of law principles to be applied when the ATO assesses and administers alleged tax debts, particularly those of self-employed, small business people.

We have found a template ‘solution’ based on how USA law requires tax administration fairness from the IRS. Here’s a video explanation and a one-page summary.

It transpires that the UK also has very similar problems with its tax administrator (HMRC) abusing self-employed people. We have a long-standing campaigning partnership with Contractor Calculator in the UK who, like us, campaigns for tax administration fairness. The UK problem is so severe that an all-party parliamentary group/committee has been formed to seek a solution to HMRC abuse. Some 250 UK MPs are in the group/committee.

Last month (on 21 February) we gave a joint presentation to the Taxpayer Fairness Group’s senior parliamentary members. We offered them a vision of a solution based on the USA model which we also recommend for Australia. Three of us gave presentations followed by Q&A (YouTube links below).

Ken-Phillips     Dave-Chaplin     Jason-Falinski

Jason made some strong points:

“At the core of this is whether governments exist to serve people or citizens exist to serve government … we have provided tax agencies in the Western world with extraordinary powers that are in breach of some pretty fundamental legal rights…”

We provided the UK parliamentary group with:

Almost exclusively, tax debates are about how much money is or should be taken out of which pockets of the people. But the way tax laws are administered cuts to the heart of the power of government over the people. And by ‘government’ we mean the faceless tax bureaucrats who administer the inevitable maze of tax laws.

Tax law administration must be subject to transparency, accountability and checks and balances so that the rule of (tax) law applies in a practical way. That is not the case in Australia nor, it seems, in the UK.

Our campaign is to secure that rule of law. The US model offers a practical template for reform.

 

ATO breakthrough on worker classification

by

worker-classificationOne of the most controversial and confusing issues for tax and labour law over the last 50 years is whether a worker is an employee or self-employed.

In February 2022, the Australian High Court released a ruling that establishes major clarity in the law on this issue. We referenced and summarised the ‘Personnel’ decision in August 2022. We included links for SEA members to:

New ATO rulings

Now the Australian Taxation Office has released new rulings (just before Christmas 2022) on the employee vs self-employed issue, based on the clarity established by the High Court in ‘Personnel.’ We consider the ATO rulings to be outstanding, providing explanation in clear lay language.

We think the ATO rulings are necessary reading for accountants, human resources and industrial relations managers, lawyers (yes!) and anyone needing clarity on worker status in Australia. This particularly includes self-employed people. There are two rulings:

The rulings we supply (for members) include highlights to assist understanding.

Employee or self-employed – Overview of ATO Ruling D3

We will provide a summary/commentary on the employee or self-employed (D3) ruling shortly. But in brief:

  • If a written contract is comprehensive and clear, it stands as the determinator of worker status.
  • If there is no written contract, or a contract is unclear etc., the standard ‘multifactorial’ test applies with the ‘totality’ of the relationship providing the answer.

Worker status – compliance with obligations – Overview of ATO Ruling D5

The ATO has a need to define worker status to ensure community compliance with:

  • PAYG – that is, determining who has responsibility to send income tax withholding payments to the ATO – the worker or the engaging entity?
  • Superannuation – that is, whether an engaging entity must make superannuation payments for a worker.

The ruling on this sets up a simple matrix which explains when the ATO will investigate. This depends on whether the compliance behaviour of the parties is deemed to be very low, low, medium or high-risk. These are explained clearly in the (D5) ruling.

Frankly, we think that anyone who allows their business to fall into the medium or high-risk areas is foolish and asking for trouble.

Non ATO tax issues – helpful but some caution needed

Even though the D3 ruling (employee or self-employed) is ATO-specific, it has strong practical application to other areas, such as definitions for workplace relations. (Note. The ATO is careful to state that the ruling is ATO/Tax/Super-specific only)

However, the law that the ATO must apply on PAYG/Superannuation is exactly the same law (at first instance) that applies to workplace relations—that is, the ‘standard’ or ‘common law’ definitions as declared by the High Court. Given that, in our view, the ATO ruling (D3) is so clearly written in layperson’s language, it is likely to prove very helpful for other areas such as workplace relations.

Even though the same helpfulness applies for workers’ compensation, OHS and payroll tax (all state issues), considerable care should be taken where these laws extend their reach to some types of independent contractors/self-employed. These ‘extension’ laws vary from state to state and are not the same as the ATO’s ‘extension’ laws.

Conclusion – Congratulations to the ATO

We consider these ATO rulings to be a major step forward. The best tax systems maximise voluntary compliance by taxpayers. This cannot occur where the rules are confused or badly explained. On this issue the ATO rulings generate considerable clarity. We recommend that our SEA members take the time to read these rulings. They are not onerous reading and quite clear.

ATO watchdog to be closed down/neutered?

by

ATO-watchdog-robodebtIf there are two things to be learnt from the current Royal Commission into the Robodebt scandal, it’s that governments can and do ‘get it wrong’ and that governments can and do inflict massive harm on individuals.

In the Robdebt affair the Australian Taxation Office supplied the income data of tens of thousands of welfare recipients to Services Australia, the federal government’s welfare department. The data was misused by Services Australia resulting in up to 200,000 people who didn’t owe the government anything being hounded by the department over incorrectly assessed debts. The scheme was illegal but the department pushed ahead anyway.

Some might say that the Royal Commission is political payback by the Albanese government against the Morrison government. That’s nonsense. The inquiry is an important investigation into how government can ‘stuff up’ even while claiming to be acting in the public interest. Lessons must be learnt, and remedies implemented to limit the misuse of government power over individuals.

That’s why we are deeply concerned to read media reports of a push to dismantle the independent ATO watchdog, the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman. The Tax Ombudsman is a small federal government department that is legislatively charged with investigating complaints against, and reporting on the performance of, the ATO.

In our view the ATO hates this oversight because it creates some measure of transparency. The ATO has a powerful media unit that pumps out stories about how perfect the ATO is. But we know that the ATO gets things wrong on too many occasions. Take this one example.

In the Robodebt Royal Commission the ATO has given evidence that the ATO remained silent about the illegality of the Robodebt program in order to protect the Human Services Department (Services Australia) from adverse publicity. The ATO wanted to show solidarity with other government departments. In fact, the ATO should have spoken up, but they didn’t. This is what happens in governments.

Good public servants will often see the protection of the institution as more important than the protection of ‘the people’, even when government inflicts harm on the people. On the other hand, public servants can have their lives destroyed if they tell the truth. Look at the treatment of ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle.

Governments need to have strong internal watchdog departments. This is what the Taxation Ombudsman does. The Ombudsman has a legislative charter to watch the ATO. Such internal watchdogs act as early warning radar systems. They make for better, more transparent government. They reduce the ability of government to harm ‘the people’. Who knows? A Services Australia watchdog might have prevented the Robodebt scandal.

We’re writing to the Prime Minister and others to ask for commitments to retain the Taxation Ombudsman. In fact, we’re asking for reform and an increase in the Ombudsman’s powers. A parliamentary committee last year recommended just this. Read our summary ‘One Giant Step for Taxpayers – ‘Taxpayer Rights’.

ATO Small Business Debt: Patience Needed

by

patienceThe Australian Taxation Office views small business tax debt as a major problem. The ATO says that small business debt is two-thirds of the $37 billion owed to the ATO—in other words, $24 billion.

Fortunately, the ATO does recognise that much of existing small business debt is the direct result of huge losses small business people suffered due to Covid lockdowns and restrictions. The ATO is showing some understanding. But we hope that the understanding is sufficient and that it will ‘stay the course’. Here’s one story that demonstrates the ‘Covid business disaster’ experienced by (at least) tens of thousands of self-employed people.

I had a chat the other day with a single mum who’s been running her own small business for about six years. She rents a commercial space that’s critical for her particular business. Things were going reasonably well and in 2019 she needed to move from one premises to another. She spent quite a bit of money upgrading the new premises, moved in and business was looking up. Then Covid hit in early 2020.

During the entire Covid lockdowns of 2020–21 the rules meant that she was prohibited from operating at all. Income dropped to zero. Yes, zero! She’d signed a five-year lease and had a bank mortgage. In early 2022 she could start operating again. But the loyal customers she had built up had drifted away. She’s had to rebuild, and although things are looking better, they are not yet back to pre-Covid (2019) levels.

She owes money to the ATO related to her pre-Covid trading. The ATO (fortunately) has her on a payment plan. She’s been very upfront with the ATO. But she’s still needing to cover her mortgage payments plus pay the rent on her premises. If she loses the premises, she’s out of business.

She talked to me about the struggle. I really don’t know if she can survive. She’s a self-motivated, positive, ‘go getter’. But my words of encouragement and support are just words and don’t cover the bills. She’s the sort of person who is most likely to battle through and, give her several years, get on top of the mess and start to make a profit again.

This lady is just one typical story. The economic pain of Covid has impacted the most vulnerable in our community—the ‘go getter’ small business individuals.

We hope that the ATO maintains its small business patience and support. But this needs to happen on a case-by-case basis, with high quality ATO communication and realistic assessments of individuals’ circumstances. It will be a long haul over several years. This is the economic ‘long Covid’.

Why we do what we do. No-one should be above the law

by

above-the-lawAs I was leaving the court at the close of our most recent Victorian Supreme Court hearing on 4 October over the 2020 Hotel Quarantine debacle, I was asked by a journalist, “why do you do what you do?”

The journalist was observing that, in taking on WorkSafe Victoria, we are taking on the might of the Victorian government. Further, there is no personal gain to be had for anyone at Self-Employed Australia in doing this. In fact, some would argue that in doing so, there may be all sorts of personal risks. And the court action consumes substantial resources with frequently very stressful work. The journalist was curious as to our motivation.

The answer is simple. In an (allegedly) democratic country constrained by the rule of law, no-one is or should be above the law. We are fighting, as best we can, to have that principle of democracy applied in practice. Democracy and the rule of law should not simply apply on election days, but be the living experience, every day, that guides our communities.

It’s like this. Governments make rules that apply to everyone. But far too frequently government excludes itself from those same rules. This happens when legislation specifically removes government from the reach of the law. It also happens when government institutions which regulate and enforce the law fail to, or (worse) refuse to, apply the laws in order to protect themselves or others.

Perhaps one of the greatest historical and enduring battles of human organisational effort is to decide the proper role of government. There are perhaps two broad aspects to the battle.

Some assume that government (by its nature) is always good, always pure and should reign supreme. Further that private enterprise is always evil because of the profit motive. (Yes, this simplistic view was passionately put quite recently in an online consultation I attended with a large government-funded think-tank!)

The counter-argument often put is that government is the source of oppression and must be constrained, reduced and curtailed.

The truth I think, is sandwiched between the two views. There is nothing holy or sacred about either government or private-sector operations. There is just the reality of human behaviour in which both the best and worst of human instincts play out against each other.

The resolution of this problem must be that we have laws that apply equally to everyone. The practices of transparency and accountability must be embedded in law and apply whether individuals work in government or the private sector.

Too frequently, however, government writes itself out of the rules that are written for everyone else, most notably the private sector.

Take this example. This Wednesday past (9 November) beefed-up laws giving protections from unfair contracts came into effect. That’s fabulous. But get this: The laws don’t apply to government departments. So a government department can, for example, engage an IT contractor but impose an unfair contract upon them. A bank cannot do the same thing. The hypocrisy is monumental. It debases the rule of law.

Another example. The ATO recently took submissions reviewing its policy for how it treats taxpayers. But these rules don’t have the force of law. Hypocrisy again. In our submission we challenged the ATO to seek to have parliament pass legislation to enshrine the fair treatment of taxpayers in law.

Our campaign to have the Victorian WorkSafe Authority prosecute individuals and government departments for OHS breaches over the 2020 hotel quarantine debacle, is a campaign for the rule of law. No-one should be above the law. (In case you’ve been following this matter, we’re still waiting for the court ruling.)

Ensuring that these simple principles of transparency and accountability apply equally to everyone is what motivates us. After all, self-employed people are always held accountable for what they do. Perhaps this is why we’re so passionate about equality of accountability.

We’ll have more news soon.

If the ATO is serious, it should legislate tax fairness

by

JordanWe’re challenging the Australian Taxation Office to enshrine fair treatment of taxpayers in legislation. It’s a major campaign priority for us.

Far too often we see self-employed, small business people in particular being treated badly by the ATO. The ATO has an internal policy that’s supposed to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly by ATO officers. The policy is stated in its Taxpayers’ Charter. The ATO is currently reviewing this policy. We’ve made a submission.

Most ATO officers behave fairly. There are some rogue ATO officers and there’s occasional incompetence. Taxpayers deserve legislated protection from rogues and incompetence. That’s fair. That’s justice.

We’ve said in our submission:

The Taxpayers’ Charter is an ATO ‘feel good’ statement of well-meaning intent as to how the ATO will or does treat taxpayers. It does not do anything to create a legislative obligation upon the ATO to treat taxpayers with any measure of fairness.

If the ATO were genuine and serious about ensuring that taxpayers were treated fairly and required to be treated fairly, the ATO would encourage and support a legislated Taxpayers’ Charter. Such legislation would impose sanctions against the ATO and ATO officers for breaches of the Charter. We recommend that the ATO support such legislation.

On a straightforward reading of the ‘Taxpayers’ Charter – essentials’ there is nothing in the wording of the Charter itself that triggers the need for compliance by the ATO if the Charter is breached by the ATO.

Our analysis of tax administrative laws is that any supposed taxpayer ‘rights’ are scattered through complex different legislative Acts that require expensive and specialised legal advice to comprehend, let alone apply. The upshot is that few people outside the ATO know or understand the rules and what the ATO lawfully can and cannot do in administrative terms.

We compare this with the USA, where taxpayers have rights to fair treatment in legislation. The USA tax office (IRS) must comply with these fair treatment laws.

In comparison, the ATO Taxpayers’ Charter is only a public relations exercise. We’re calling on the ATO to support taxpayer fairness in legislation.

Our submission to the ATO is here. It’s not too long a read and sets out:

  • The ATO Taxpayers’ Charter;
  • A table of the complex laws covering alleged Australian taxpayer rights; and
  • The USA Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

We’ve been running this campaign for over a decade now and will continue to do so.

New UK PM sets benchmark for self-employed (tax) rights

by

truss-albaneseWe’ve been campaigning for more than a decade for major reform to how the ATO treats self-employed small business people. And since 2000 we’ve studied how the UK tax authority (HMRC) treats the UK’s self-employed. Both the ATO and HMRC seem to have been trained at the same bureaucrats’ ‘bully school’. Both defile the ideas and practices of justice and fairness.

But late last week, the new Truss government took a giant leap by repealing tax administration laws that HMRC has been using to bludgeon the UK’s self-employed. The Albanese government should take note.

What drove the UK repeal was a realisation that the UK laws were doing major harm to the UK’s economy. But more, the issue was cancerous for the Conservative Party’s political future.

The UK issue goes back to 2000. The UK tax authority, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), views all self-employed people as tax dodgers. In 2000, laws were introduced (called ‘IR35’) which enabled HMRC to declare self-employed people to be employees. The trouble is that, invariably, when the courts looked at HMRC’s declarations, HMRC lost. But they kept destroying small businesses.

In 2017 HMRC shifted tactics. Instead of directly attacking self-employed people, additional new rules, called ‘Off Payroll’, required the engaging business to be responsible for deciding if a person was self-employed or an employee.

In 2021 HMRC applied the new Off Payroll rules to the private sector. This is where disaster struck (again). Third-party operators had evolved since 2017 who claimed that they could manage the Off Payroll rules. The public sector, followed by the private sector, forced self-employed contractors to work through these third-party operators. But far too many of these operators ran their own tax-dodging schemes, stole from contractors, and operated outside the UK to avoid UK laws.

In August 2022 the London School of Economics reported that UK self-employed numbers were down by 500,000, and dropping. It said, “The economy is not going to recover until we start treating them (self-employed people) better.”

This message about economic reality was delivered shortly after Boris Johnson had resigned as PM, but it was already resonating throughout the UK. Rishi Sunak was Johnson’s Chancellor. He introduced Off Payroll to the private sector in 2021. When Sunak made his pitch to become Conservative Party leader he was hammered on social media for his trashing of the self-employed. Liz Truss promised to do something about IR35. Truss won the leadership.

What has caught everyone by surprise is that the new Chancellor’s announcement last week is a complete destruction of Off Payroll. This is a massive embarrassment for HMRC but shows the extent to which the Truss government is seeking a total reset. Dumping Off Payroll is a headline part of a substantial package of UK business encouragement reforms aimed primarily at easing regulatory complexity.

What has all this to do with Australia? Business regulation complexity and bureaucratic stupidity grinds down economic growth. The UK’s HMRC has been doing huge harm to the base of the UK economy, self-employed people.  The ATO is doing the same in Australia. At some point we need a government that will seek a fix.

It’s about collecting tax within a framework of legislated fairness and justice. Here’s our model for a solution. (YouTube)

The truth needs to be told about the ATO.  Drop the charges against Richard Boyle

by

richard-boyle-protestEarly this week the trial for ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle was to start in the Adelaide District Court. However, Richard and his entire legal team came down with Covid and the trial could not proceed.

But the trial cancellation didn’t stop us joining a rally of citizens calling for Richard’s case to be dropped. In the photo are SEA members Annette and Tina making our views known. The Australian Financial Review gave Richard’s case good exposure on Monday.

Background

On 9 April 2018 an ABC Four Corners exposé was aired that exposed malpractice and small business abuse by the Australian Taxation Office. Ex-ATO debt collection officer Richard Boyle featured in the program, detailing malpractice in the ATO’s debt collection division. Essentially the ATO was raiding people’s bank accounts in defiance of its required rules.

Richard had lodged an internal report to the ATO detailing the malpractice which was ignored. Richard then followed lawful whistleblower procedures in going public. However, the ATO still went after him, initially with charges that would put Richard in jail for 161 years.

Richard’s report on ATO malpractice was subsequently proven to be accurate by both the Inspector-General of Taxation and the Small Business Ombudsman. A Senate Committee criticised the ATO.

Why the charges should be dropped

We have detailed why the charges against Richard should be dropped. See our full reasons here.

In summary, our reasons include:

  • Richard’s whistleblowing was the moral thing to do. This impacts upon the appropriateness of the prosecution.
  • The charges against Richard are the product of a witch-hunt.
  • The length and expense of a trial is a waste of public resources.
  • There is a need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

In undertaking Richard’s prosecution, the Commonwealth risks creating the impression of conducting a cover-up of evidence of maladministration by the ATO. If not a cover-up, then at least a diversion from the truth. This seriously diminishes the confidence of the public in the tax administration system. Further, it seriously diminishes trust in the justice system itself, by delivering the potential impression that the justice system is likewise involved in covering up maladministration by the ATO.

Stop prosecution/ persecution of ATO whistle-blower Richard Boyle

by

richard-boyleIn a truly important development, Labor’s new Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus MP, has ordered the dropping of charges against whistle-blower lawyer Bernard Collaery. Collaery had supported an ex-spy who exposed a 2004 Australian spying operation in East Timor.

We ask Mr Dreyfus to now seriously consider the dropping of charges against ATO whistle-blower Richard Boyle.

Richard was charged in 2019 with offences that would have put him in jail for 161 years. This occurred after Richard exposed serious misbehaviour inside the ATO in their debt actions against small business people. Richard went public with this in 2018 on the Four Corners exposé of the ATO’s bad behaviour.

Richard’s reporting of ATO misbehaviour has proven accurate in the following years. Further, a Senate inquiry heard that because the ATO ignored Richard’s internal reporting, this led to investigations from the Inspector-General of Taxation, the media and so on.  Even an ATO-funded survey found that the ATO acted unfairly.

Australian whistle-blower laws are supposed to protect public servants who follow set procedures, principally issuing public interest disclosure documents. The legislation on this supposedly facilitates “… disclosure and investigation of wrongdoing and maladministration in the Commonwealth public sector…” What a joke this law is.

Richard followed public interest disclosure processes but that didn’t give him any protection. The ATO went after Richard anyway.

In our view Richard Boyle is an Australian hero. He exposed the truth about  the bad behaviour of the ATO.  In our view, the ATO is not just in the business of prosecuting Richard but rather of persecuting him. Why? In our view it’s because Richard is being used as an example to all other ATO officers. The message is clear. Don’t tell the truth. Don’t expose when the ATO does the wrong thing.

In the United States, whistle-blower protection laws are robust and have a long history dating back to the Civil War. The US recognizes that government must be transparent and accountable if government is to serve the people properly. Protecting people who declare the truth is an essential part of open, transparent and good government.

We congratulate the new Albanese government and AG Mark Dreyfus for dropping the charges against Bernard Collaery. Previous Coalition governments have shown no interest in protecting whistle-blowers but have been active in their persecution. The Albanese government seems to be using a firm broom to sweep up a major mess on this one.

Mark Dreyfus has let it be known that he is reviewing other whistle-blower cases, but has not confirmed if Richard Boyle is one of them. We ask that Dreyfus do for Ricard Boyle what he has done for Bernard Collaery and drop the charges.

We consider this an important step toward better government and a better ATO.