ASIC’s new alert list offers guidance on suspicious investment “opportunities”

As a part of the government strategy to target investment scams, ASIC and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – through the newly formed National Anti-Scam Centre – have published an investor alert list which may help consumers to identify whether entities they are considering investing with could be fraudulent, running a scam or unlicensed. While the list is not exhaustive, as new scams are appearing every day, any reduction of consumer harm, financially and non-financially, is surely a positive step.

According to the National Anti-Scam Centre, which commenced operation on 1 July 2023, Australians reported a record $3.1 billion of losses to scams the previous year. The Centre is already making inroads by highlighting the most harmful scams and making it easier for Australians to report scammers, and it will build its capabilities over the next three years, working on a new system to improve scam data-sharing across government and the private sector.

The new investor alert list replaces the previous list of “companies you should not deal with” issued by ASIC, and has the advantage of including both domestic and international entities that regulators are concerned about. These concerns largely relate to entities operating and offering services to Australians without appropriate licenses, exemptions, authorisation or permission. The alert list also includes entities that run impersonation scams, falsely claiming to be associated with legitimate and often well-known businesses.

ASIC recommends conducting the following checks before handing over any investment money:

• Check whether the company or person is licensed or authorised: generally, a company or finance professional must hold an Australian financial services (AFS) licence to issue or sell investments

in Australia, or they must be an authorised representative of an AFS licence holder.

• Understand how the investment works: ASIC recommends obtaining a product disclosure statement (PDS) or prospectus from the public website for the company, speaking to a financial adviser and/or searching ASIC’s Offer Noticeboard.

• Check for common signs of an investment scam: confirm the company’s details through open-source searches and consider calling the number on the public website. Be wary of any offer documents sent by email.

TIP: You can consult the investor alert list at https://moneysmart.gov.au/check-and-report-scams/investor-alert-list.

ATO pauses “debts on hold” awareness campaign

In response to community feedback and perhaps to negative commentary in the media, the ATO has announced it is pausing its “awareness campaign around tax debts on hold”. It notes that the purpose of the letters it sent was to ensure that taxpayers had full visibility of their existing tax debts. Nonetheless, it will undertake a review into its overall approach to debts on hold before progressing any further.

If your small business has tax amounts owing to the ATO and hasn’t received a letter thus far, keep in mind that you may still have a debt on hold.

Many small business debts were put on hold entirely by the ATO (meaning debt amounts were not deducted from tax refunds or credits) during the COVID-19 pandemic’s rapidly changing business conditions, with the intention of giving these businesses a chance to recover and rebuild. The Australian National Audit Office reviewed this approach and found it to be inconsistent with the law, and the ATO then received clear advice that by law, any credits or refunds that a

small business becomes entitled to must be used to pay off (offset) its tax debt. This action is generally automatic, and should apply even where the ATO is not actively pursuing the debt (such as was the case during the height of the pandemic).

Due to the legal requirement for offsetting, small businesses with debts on hold may now find that any credits or refunds from lodged tax returns or BASs may be less than expected, or may even be reduced to zero. After the offsetting, any balance payable relating to your business’s debt on hold will remain on hold until it is paid in full.

You don’t need to actively do anything in relation to offsetting of debts, and you will only need to contact the ATO if you’d like to make payments towards your debt on hold or make a request for the ATO not to offset.

TIP: There are very limited circumstances where the ATO has the discretion not to offset a debt and to instead issue a refund. Contact us to find out more.

The easiest way to check whether a debt on hold exists is through ATO online services. You may need to download a file with all transactions on the applicable account to check, as debts on hold will not show as an outstanding balance on the account (because of their “on hold” status).

It’s important to be aware that debts on hold can be reactivated at any time where the ATO believes that there’s capacity for your business to pay. You will be notified if this is going to happen, usually in writing. A reactivated debt will show as an outstanding balance on the relevant account in ATO online services.

While the ATO acknowledges that its approach to communicating about debts on hold caused “unnecessary distress”, particularly to taxpayers whose debts were incurred several years ago, it has verified that all debts exist and that all taxpayers were previously informed when the debt was originally incurred through their notice of assessment.

Simplified payroll reporting and STP Phase 2: employers take note

While Single Touch Payroll Phase 2 (STP Phase 2) started on 1 January 2022, many digital service providers have a deferral in place to enable them to transition their customers over time. Under STP Phase 2, businesses report certain information directly to the ATO through their payroll software, such as:

• details of the remuneration they pay (eg salary and wages to employees, directors’ remuneration);

• details of PAYG withholding, including how the amounts are calculated; and

• superannuation liability information.

STP Phase 2 doesn’t change which payments employers need to report through STP, but it does change how those amounts need to be reported.

Employers need to take note that STP Phase 2 changes require your input. Carefully review your payroll reporting codes to ensure accurate data submission to the ATO through STP.

You will now start to see BAS data pre-filling by the ATO.It’s important to cross-check the pre-filled information with your payroll records to prove the correct data has been submitted to the ATO and ensure correct withholdings are remitted. Any anomalies you identify may highlight errors in your system configuration.

Don’t forget that when an employee leaves a job, information must be provided in the employer’s STP Phase 2 report, including the employment cessation date and the correct code indicating why the employee left. Details of termination payments must also be reported to the ATO.

$20,000 instant asset write-off for small business: beware timing

Legislation is currently before Federal Parliament that proposes to allow a deduction of $20,000 (up from $1,000) for the instant asset write-off of depreciating assets acquired by small business entities in the period from 1 July 2023.These new rules were previously announced by the Federal Government in its May 2023 Federal Budget.

In the period from March 2020, as part of tax relief measures arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary full expensing of certain depreciation assets allowed many businesses to write off the entire cost of certain assets. The latest Bill proposes that from 1 July 2023, under simplified depreciation rules, depreciating assets costing less than $20,000 (excluding GST), may be immediately deducted, where the asset is first used or ready for use in the year ending 30 June 2024. Note that depreciating assets that are first used or installed ready for use for a taxable purpose on or after 1 July 2024 will be subject to the $1,000 threshold.

The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per-asset basis, so small businesses will be able to instantly write off multiple assets.

The instant asset write-off rules are available to entities that meet the definition of “small business entity” and where the entity carries on a business with an aggregate turnover of less than $10 million. Connected entities to a small business taxpayer may also need to be considered to qualify for a deduction under the $20,000 instant asset write-off.

Depreciating assets that cost $20,000 or more are allocated to a small business entity general small business pool and can then be deducted at the rates of

15% in the year the asset is allocated to the pool and 30% in subsequent years.

If the balance of a small business entity’s general small business pool is less than $20,000 at the end of the income year ending 30 June 2024, the small business entity will be able to claim a deduction for the entire balance of the pool.

JobKeeper assessment: Treasury report released Treasury has released the Independent Evaluation of the JobKeeper Payment Final Report. The report considers both the impact and processes of JobKeeper. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness of JobKeeper in achieving its objectives, and records lessons learned from the design and implementation of JobKeeper, with a view to informing future policy responses.

JobKeeper was a central pillar of the policy response in Australia to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a wage subsidy and income support program announced on 30 March 2020, as the third instalment in a series of economic support packages introduced in the space of three weeks. Modifications to policy design, including changes to eligibility criteria and the payment rate and structure, were made following a three-month review. JobKeeper remained in place until 28 March 2021.

The report finds that JobKeeper provided certainty during a crisis, and its take-up was high. It provided support to around four million employees – almost one-third of Australia’s pre-pandemic employment population – and around one million businesses. Credible estimates suggest that JobKeeper preserved between roughly 300,000 and 800,000 jobs.

With a total cost of $88.8 billion, JobKeeper was the one of the largest fiscal and labour market interventions in Australia’s history. The initial six months of the program cost approximately $70 billion. The first and second three-month extensions cost around $13 billion and $6 billion respectively.

JobKeeper was implemented with incredible speed and was well managed, the report finds. The incidence of fraud was low, and in particular lower than for other ATO-administered programs and taxes such as the cashflow boost, GST tax receipts and large corporate groups income tax.

However, the report says, narrow recipient eligibility and exclusions reduced the effectiveness of JobKeeper and had negative economic consequences.

Exclusions based on employee characteristics such as being a short-term casual or temporary migrant worker compromised the efficacy of JobKeeper and “led to worse outcomes”. In particular, the exclusion of short-term migrants from JobKeeper likely reduced the productive capacity of the Australian economy and constrained recovery in some sectors.

The report states that transparency requirements should be built into policy design to “build public trust and enable appropriate scrutiny of public expenditures”. JobKeeper did not include in its design a public registry or disclosure requirement for entities that received the payment.

JobKeeper was a policy designed for an extraordinary situation. While it was justified during the pandemic, such a policy should be reserved for a macroeconomic crisis and is not appropriate for industry or region-specific shocks or downturns in Australia,

ASIC calls on lenders to support customers

With the cost of living crisis and increase in interest rates hitting Australian households, there is growing evidence that many are falling into financial stress. It is with this background that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has issued an open letter to various banks, credit institutions, and lenders, calling on them to ensure that their customers have the appropriate level of support.

ASIC has reminded lenders that under s 72 of the National Credit Code, providers must consider varying a customer’s credit contract if they are notified that these credit obligations are unable to be met. Credit providers must also ensure that credit activities authorised by their licence are engaged in efficiently, honestly and fairly. First and foremost, to meet their obligations, lenders must proactively communicate to customers about the circumstances in which they can seek hardship assistance and the options that are available.

Hardship options may be temporary (eg deferring a payment) or permanent (eg setting up a payment plan or altering/varying loan repayments). Applications for financial hardship will usually be required to provide proof of hardship including reasons for the hardship, current income and other major financial expenses, as well as the level of repayments that can be afforded at the current time.

Customers worried that seeking hardship arrangements will permanently affect their future credit scores can rest easy knowing the effects are only temporary. While hardship arrangements for certain credit products such as loans or credit cards can appear in credit reports, the report will only show the months the arrangement is in place, or if the arrangement is permanent, the month the loan is varied, no other details are included and the listing will be deleted after 12 months.

Where a hardship application is granted, lenders should contact customers as the period of assistance comes to an end, to understand their most up-to-date financial circumstance and consider whether further assistance is required. This includes ensuring that customers understand what happens to any arrears that may exist at the end of the hardship assistance period.

Where a customer’s hardship assistance is denied, written reasons must be provided along with other options including making a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) about the decision.

Subscriptions included in digital adoption boost: ATO clarification

The ATO has advised that new and ongoing subscription costs can also qualify as eligible expenditure for the purposes of the digital adoption boost. This was not specified in the ATO’s original release on the measure.

The additional 20% tax deduction applies to eligible expenditure incurred by small and medium business entities between 7:30 pm AEDT on 29 March 2022 and 30 June 2023. The boost is for business expenses and depreciating assets and is capped at $100,000 of expenditure per income year. Eligible claimants can receive a maximum bonus deduction of $20,000 per income year.

In its latest release, the ATO states that a good rule of thumb is to consider “if the small business would have incurred the expense if they didn’t operate digitally. That is, if they hadn’t sought to adopt digital technologies in the running of their business”.

Using this rule of thumb, the ATO confirms that these costs are eligible:

• advice about digitising a business;
• leasing digital equipment; and
• repairs and improvements to eligible assets that aren’t capital works.

Whether some expenditure is eligible for the boost will depend on its purpose and its link to digitising the operations of the specific small business. For example, “the cost of a multifunction printer would not be eligible if it were intended to only make copies of paper documents. However, it would be claimable if being used to convert paper documents for digital use and storage”.

Importantly, the ATO states that new and ongoing subscription costs can also qualify as eligible expenditure if it relates to a taxpayer’s digital operations; for example, an ongoing subscription to an accounting software platform for the business would qualify, as would a new subscription for digital content that is used in developing web content to advertise the business.

Small business litigation funding: improvements recommended

A recent Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO) report has recommended improvements to the small business litigation funding program, aimed at delivering better access to justice and fairness for small businesses.

The original intention of the funding program was to mitigate the disadvantage that small business taxpayers face against the ATO, which is a well-resourced and experienced litigant in proceedings which are often complex and costly.

Taxpayers that are self-represented in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Small Business Taxation Division in disputes with the Commissioner of Taxation are generally eligible for litigation funding where the ATO engages external legal representation. Eligible small business taxpayers will have reasonable costs of engaging an equivalent level of legal representation covered.

The report from the IGTO was mainly based on two completed dispute investigations, where taxpayers expressed concerns that the ATO had attempted to cap the funding to levels below that necessary to run their matter.

There were also questions as to the ATO’s calculation basis for reimbursements which taxpayers were not made aware of when entering these agreements, and the ATO’s “numerous emails to the taxpayers’ legal representatives questioning the bills which … detracted from case preparation”.

The IGTO notes that without the adoption of its suggested improvements to litigation funding by the ATO, further dispute investigations should be expected. Meanwhile, in response, the ATO considers itself to be no longer bound by the original policy intent of the program, and has continued to confine the findings of the report to the two cases investigated, notwithstanding similar ATO actions and decisions that have been subject to further complaints to the IGTO.

However, it is understood that the ATO does intend to consult with stakeholders before committing to any improvements and that the IGTO recommendations contained in the report will be considered as a part of this process. While changes may not be forthcoming for the small business litigation program, the takeaway for taxpayers is that they can always turn to the IGTO, which provides an independent body to investigate the ATO’s decisions.

SMSF compliance activity escalation

The ATO has ramped up compliance activity in the self managed super fund (SMSF) space in response to an increasing number of funds that have been identified as not complying with superannuation obligations. For the 2023 year, the ATO says it has issued double the amount of tax and penalties when compared with the 2022 income year, and the number of disqualifications has tripled.

For the 2023 year, ATO compliance actions included issuing an additional $29 million in income tax liabilities, administrative and tax shortfall penalties, and interest on SMSF trustees and/or members, which is double the amount of tax and penalties the ATO issued in 2022. In addition, a total of 753 trustees were disqualified in the 2023 income year, and that is more than triple the amount of disqualifications in the 2022 income year.

According to the ATO, the most common reason for applying penalties was the illegal early access of super benefits by fund members. It reminds SMSF trustees that they have a responsibility to ensure that members have met a condition of release before any funds are released. Trustees should also be aware that some conditions of release have cashing restrictions which restrict the form of benefit (ie lump sum or pension) or the amount of benefit that can be paid.

Common conditions of release include the fund member having reached preservation age and retired, or commenced a transition-to-retirement income stream; ceasing an employment arrangement on or after the age of 60; being 65 years old even though they haven’t retired; or having died.

If the common conditions of release aren’t met, where a member meets eligibility requirements under certain special circumstances, they are able to have at least part of their super benefits released before reaching preservation age. These special circumstances include that the fund member:

• has terminated gainful employment;
• is temporarily or permanently incapacitated;
• is suffering severe financial hardship;
• meets conditions for compassionate grounds;
• has a terminal medical condition; or
• is taking part in the first home super saver scheme.

Besides targeting illegal early release, the ATO has reminded trustees of SMSFs that their fund must be audited every year by a suitably qualified auditor and an annual return must be lodged by the due date. This blitz on the SMSF compliance is set to continue all through until the end of the 2024 income year, with the ATO explicitly stating it will take “firm action” against trustees who persistently fail to comply with their obligations and seriously breach the superannuation laws.