Centrelink is not the only federal government organisation that engaged is a collect at all costs first investigate later approach when it comes to money. The ATO takes a similar approach.
I know of plenty of small business owners who have been pursued by the ATO as a result of a flawed data matching process. In one case, a claimed debt of over half a million dollars dropped by 90% once the ATO considered the evidence. Sadly, it took well over a year for the ATO to agree to look at the evidence. In the meantime, irreparable damage was done to the morale of those leading the business.
What we have been eating about Centrelink = the letters they send, their appalling customer service, the inability to contact them, their assumption that threads of data stitched together can present an accurate view – is also true for the ATO.
Somewhere in government the principle of collect at all costs first investigate later must have been set. It is being pursued with vigour.
I heard from a retailer earlier this week who is being pursued for $80,000. They don’t think they owe it, nor does their accountant. Thanks to an address change and resulting lost mail, the newsagent has heard about the issue when the ATO has taken cash from their bank account. Payroll is at risk as are key supplier payments. This business could close because of the action by the ATO.
Politicians who say they care about small business and ordinary Australians need to investigate the systems of government, they need to see why the ATO, Centrelink and maybe others are pursuing their collect at all costs first investigate later approach. Politicians need to consider whether penalising someone prior to a trial is just and fair.
I am changing my attitude to the ATO.
I used to treat them with some casual disdain, and sometimes I would be late with BAS and other correspondence.
Turning over a new leaf now.
They have my respect now; or is that fear?