The August 2004 IGT Review

8.1 The 2004 review was conducted by the Inspector-General following a request made by the then Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer for an evaluation of the administration of general interest charge (GIC or interest) remission in cases of tax dispute where settlement offers involving groups of taxpayers have been made. The Minister asked that particular consideration be given to the situation of participants in Employee Benefit Arrangements (EBAs).

8.2 Consultations between the Inspector-General and the tax community expressed substantial concern about the Tax Office's approach to remitting GIC. They were particularly concerned that the Tax Office's approach, especially in the area of Mass Marketed Tax Effective Investments (MMTEI), was inconsistent with its practice elsewhere, such as in relation to EBAs. These consultations also indicated that there was a view among accounting and tax practitioner bodies that the Tax Office was reluctant to use its power to remit the GIC.

8.3 In undertaking the review, the Inspector-General did not review the actual efficacy of the disputed arrangements or the Tax Office processes for achieving finalisation171. The key issue for the review was the consistency of approach by the Tax Office in the application of its GIC remission powers.

8.4 Care was taken to avoid standing in the shoes of the Commissioner in respect of making individual judgements on specific cases. It was acknowledged that the responsibility to consider remission of GIC in whole or in part rests with the Commissioner, and various review rights are available to aggrieved taxpayers.

8.5 The focus of the review was on the broader systemic approach and conduct of the Tax Office, resulting in the following key findings and, in certain cases, recommendations by the Inspector-General. The essence of these findings was as follows:

  1. Despite the tax laws providing the Commissioner with a broad power to remit GIC, the Commissioner had adopted a narrow approach regarding the circumstances in which the GIC remission power would be exercised. The interest remission guidelines (inferred as being required) must be flexible and responsive to remove inappropriate punitive-like consequences where out-of-the-ordinary circumstances exist.
  2. The Tax Office does not provide adequate guidance for remission of GIC and, therefore, the Commissioner should publish a separate policy document on the GIC remission power which not only provides clear guidance but also includes the different considerations relevant to determining whether remission of GIC is warranted for either or both the pre-amended and post-amended assessment periods.
  3. Although disputes involving different groups of taxpayers may have distinguishing features, at the taxpayer level there are more common features between the individuals forming part of each group of taxpayers than points of differentiation. Against this background, an examination of all the circumstances of the taxpayers involved in these arrangements may indicate that it is more appropriate for a similar interest remission outcome to arise for taxpayers who share similar individual circumstances regardless of the particular arrangement involved.
  4. The approach of the Commissioner suggested that more focus has been on considerations of administrative efficiency as opposed to an examination of a taxpayer's individual conduct and circumstances. In particular, considerations of the type and nature of the arrangement and the extent to which members of a group shared certain further characteristics have overshadowed consideration of the conduct and circumstances for each individual.
  5. The factors that the Tax Office has considered relevant in the statutory reduction and remission of penalties may also be relevant in considering the remission of the interest charge for groups of taxpayers in dispute with the Tax Office.
  6. Tax administration would improve if an internal review process of a structure similar to that adopted for MMTEI investors was adopted for EBA taxpayers. However, any such review process would need to operate according to the overriding principle that all individual circumstances relating to particular taxpayers are taken into account during the operation of this process.
  7. A focus on the nature of the arrangement in EBA disputes appears to have led to taxpayers involved in EBA disputes receiving interest remission outcomes which are inconsistent with those received by other groups of taxpayers. It has also led to taxpayers involved in certain types of EBAs receiving interest remission outcomes which are not consistent with those applied to taxpayers involved in other forms of EBAs.

8.6 In communications before the public release of the report, the then Commissioner of Taxation advised the Inspector-General that in response to the review he would issue guidelines to the effect that where the EBA participant had a good history of payment and lodgement, was not previously involved in a MMTEI or other tax avoidance scheme and one or both of the following applied, the Tax Office would remit interest to 4.72 per cent for the pre-amended assessment period:

  1. the participant was subject to the type of aggressive and sophisticated marketing techniques commonly employed in MMTEIs; and
  2. the participant entered into an arrangement relying on advice from the Tax Office held by the advisor in relation to that particular type of arrangement.

8.7 The Commissioner further advised that, where one or more of the following was able to be demonstrated, remission of interest for both pre- and post-amended assessment periods to 4.72 per cent would apply:

  1. the participant suffered financial difficulties because of the existence of both income tax and fringe benefits tax assessments. This could include, for example, evidence of an inability to secure borrowings that, but for there being multiple liabilities, could reasonably be expected to have been available;
  2. the participant's financial circumstances are such that they could not reasonably meet repayment of the liability with full interest component;
  3. the participant relied on advice given by the Tax Office to them or their agent or advisor about the particular arrangement.

8.8 Following public release of the Inspector-General's 2004 report, the Tax Office announced172 in November 2004 four major steps it was committed to take to bring about improvements to GIC administration:

  1. Undertake a review of the guidelines on the remission of interest charges in consultation with the Inspector-General, the Ombudsman and other key community representatives.
  2. Set up a panel of senior tax officers to consider the situations where widely based settlement offers are appropriate. The panel would be supported by guidelines specifically tailored to these situations. The guidelines will be open for public consultation and will be kept under review.
  3. Enable participants in EBAs to apply for remission of interest and penalties based on their individual circumstances. Where the conditions for remission were satisfied, interest was generally to be reduced to 4.72 per cent for part, or in some cases all, of the period the debt was outstanding.
  4. Interest accruing prior to 19 January 2005 would be capped at 70 per cent of the primary tax owed for EBAs.

Report on Aspects of Income Tax Self Assessment

8.9 Shortly after the then Commissioner's November 2004 announcement, in December 2004 the previous government released its Report on Aspects of Income Tax Self Assessment (ROSA)173. ROSA included a number of important developments relevant to this review, notably the legislative changes relating to the treatment of tax shortfalls brought about by the Tax Laws Amendment (Improvements to Self Assessment) Act (No. 1) 2005 including:

  • the introduction of the shortfall interest charge (SIC) with its three percentage point uplift over the base rate, from the due date of the original assessment to the day before the shortfall is corrected174;
  • broader power for the Commissioner to remit the SIC where it is 'fair and reasonable' to do so.

8.10 Together with the specific findings of the Inspector-General's 2004 review and the then Commissioner's four-step commitment, the ROSA changes completed the new administrative context for GIC administration. The extent to which the Tax Office has fulfilled its commitment to implement the four major steps, and in so doing has also addressed the Inspector-General's specific findings, is the subject of this follow-up review.

Implementation of findings

8.11 This first review conducted by the Inspector-General made findings rather than specific recommendations. The Tax Office responded to these findings, but also agreed to take four major steps to address the core concerns raised by the review (see paragraph 8.8 above). Since then, the Inspector-General has maintained a watching brief on the Tax Office's handling of EBA cases and has sought and received periodic briefings from the Tax Office on progress.

8.12 From this ongoing monitoring and from fieldwork done as part of this follow-up review, the Inspector-General has concluded that the Tax Office has fulfilled its commitment to implement the four important steps mentioned above. The Inspector-General considers this to be an important achievement that provides positive context for his assessment of the status of the Tax Office's responses to the findings of the review.

8.13 The following analysis of status against findings is therefore somewhat different to that of previous chapters covering the specific recommendations of more recent reviews.

Key Finding 1

The legislative provisions authorising interest remission for the pre-amended assessment period provide the Commissioner with a broad power to remit the interest charge.

However, the Commissioner has adopted a narrow approach regarding the circumstances in which the interest remission power will be exercised.

This has meant that, particularly where this interest has accrued over a period of up to 4 or 6 years, the pre-amended assessment interest charge without remission may have a far broader and punitive-like effect. The interest remission guidelines must be flexible and responsive to remove inappropriate punitive-like consequences where out-of-the-ordinary circumstances exist.

Tax Office Position

8.14 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.15 On 1 August 2006, the Tax Office released a practice statement providing guidelines for the remission of SIC and GIC — PS LA 2006/8 Remission of shortfall interest charge and general interest charge for shortfall periods. In summary, the practice statement provides that:

The Commissioner may remit all or part of SIC or shortfall GIC where the Commissioner considers it fair and reasonable to do so.175

8.16 PS LA 2006/8 provides guidance to Tax Office staff about making fair and reasonable decisions on the remission of interest charges whilst having regard to the facts of the matter and the individual circumstances of the taxpayer involved.

8.17 Throughout the practice statement a number of practical examples are provided which give further guidance to staff about the use of remission powers as well as the extent of remission (that is to what level remission is appropriate).

8.18 In terms of Key Finding 1, the practice statement discusses 'out of the ordinary' situations where a flexible and responsive approach by Tax Office staff is considered appropriate to alleviate punitive-like consequences. In addition, Tax Office staff are directed to consider (where relevant) when making decisions about remission:

… the extent to which factors beyond the taxpayer's control were responsible for the size and duration of the shortfall.176

8.19 An example is the resolution of an audit beyond a reasonable completion time because of the complexity of issues involved.177 Another example is where there are delays outside of the taxpayer's control such as the occurrence of a natural disaster or where the taxpayer has suffered serious illness.178

Implementation Status: Implemented

The Tax Office has released guidelines regarding the remission of interestPS LA 2006/8. In line with this key finding, the practice statement provides guidance to Tax Office staff about the need for a flexible approach to remission where circumstances beyond a taxpayer's control have been responsible for the size and duration of the shortfall.

Key Finding 2

Prior to 1992, the Commissioner had an established policy that the remission power for interest, or its equivalent, for the pre-amended assessment period would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

With the 1992 legislative amendments to the penalty and interest provisions, including the introduction of the interest 'uplift' factor, the Commissioner did not revise his previous policy regarding the circumstances in which the interest remission power would be exercised.

As such, there was no detailed policy framework for the remission of the pre-amended assessment interest charge for the years of income from 1992-93 up to and including 1999-2000.

For the years of income 2000-01 and onwards, the ATO's Receivables Policy does not provide sufficient guidance to the public on how the interest remission power is to be exercised for the pre-amended assessment period.

For this reason, tax administration would benefit if the Commissioner published a separate policy document which provides clear guidelines on his policy, covering the current and prior years, for the remission of the interest charge.

The policy should include the different considerations relevant to determining whether remission of the interest charge is warranted for either or both the pre-amended and post-amended assessment periods.

Tax Office Position

8.20 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.21 As outlined in Key Finding 1, the Tax Office has published a policy document in the form of PS LA 2006/8 that provides guidance about the issues to be considered when determining whether remission of interest charge is warranted. The practice statement provides this guidance in respect of both pre- and post-amendment assessment periods. Some examples of the different considerations raised in the practice statement include:

  • Tax Office delay in commencing an audit.
  • Tax Office delay in obtaining information from a third party.
  • Tax Office exceeds expected audit completion date.
  • Delay is outside of a taxpayer's control.
  • The taxpayer has made an unprompted voluntary disclosure.
  • The taxpayer could not have been aware of the shortfall when lodging the relevant return.

8.22 PS LA 2006/8 states that the above list of different considerations:

… are not exhaustive and are not intended to limit the Commissioner in his discretion to remit interest charges when it is fair and reasonable to do so.179

8.23 PS LA 2006/8 deals with both GIC that accrues in the period prior to the amendment or revision of a tax liability, and the SIC that applies whenever an income tax assessment is amended increasing tax payable. The SIC applies to amendments of income tax assessments relating to the 2004-05 year of income and later years.

Implementation Status: Implemented

On 1 August 2006 the Tax Office released PS LA 2006/8 that provides guidance on the remission of the interest charge for either or both the pre-amended and post-amended assessment periods. The practice statement includes a number of considerations that are relevant to determining whether remission of the interest charge is warranted.

Key Finding 3

Although disputes involving different groups of taxpayers may have distinguishing features including the nature, complexity and sophistication of the arrangements, at the taxpayer level there are more common features between the individuals forming part of each group than points of differentiation. These include a broad array of investors, targeted marketing techniques, prior ATO advice/advance opinions/rulings and time delays.

Against this background, an examination of all the circumstances of the taxpayers involved in these arrangements may indicate that it is more appropriate for a similar interest remission outcome to arise for taxpayers who share similar individual circumstances regardless of the particular arrangement involved.

Tax Office Position

8.24 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.25 In response to the Inspector-General's 2004 review, the Tax Office set up a panel of senior Tax Office staff to consider the situations where widely based settlement offers were appropriate for EBA participants. Following the process, a table was released to the public outlining the various settlement positions. In line with this key finding, these remission outcomes were aligned so that taxpayers sharing similar individual circumstances would be treated similarly. Put simply, remission outcomes were not classed solely with reference to the particular arrangement involved.

8.26 In support of this, taxpayers were invited to put forward their individual financial and other circumstances not directly related to the nature of the particular arrangement and the circumstances of the person's position in it. Fieldwork undertaken by the Inspector-General indicated that remission outcomes were applied in accordance with the above mentioned grouping so that individual circumstances of taxpayers were given appropriate weighting as per the key finding.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Key Finding 4

Administrative procedures regarding the remission of the interest charge for groups of taxpayers require that an appropriate balance is achieved between considerations of administrative efficiency in dealing with groups of taxpayers and examining the conduct and circumstances of a taxpayer in accordance with the Taxpayers' Charter.

To date, the approach of the Commissioner suggests more focus has been on considerations of administrative efficiency as opposed to an examination of a taxpayer's individual conduct and circumstances. In particular, considerations of the type and nature of the arrangement and the extent to which members of a group share certain further characteristics have overshadowed consideration of the conduct and circumstances for each individual.

Tax Office Position

8.27 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.28 As outlined in Key Finding 3, fieldwork undertaken by the Inspector-General demonstrated that the individual conduct of a taxpayer and the circumstances involved have been the focus of Tax Office staff following on from the development of widely based settlement offers for EBA participants. This practice has been promoted with taxpayers being invited (when requesting the remission of interest) to put forward their individual financial and other circumstances not directly related to the nature of the particular arrangement, and the circumstances of the person's position in it.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Key Finding 6

For certain investors in Mass Marketed Tax Effective Investments (MMTEIs) the ATO set up a formal process, which also involved separate ATO internal review procedures, for the remission of interest and other elements contained in the standardised settlement arrangements. A similar process has not been established for participants in employee benefit arrangements.

The actual formal structure of this process for certain MMTEI investors and its accompanying review procedures were well documented within the ATO and transparent to taxpayers.

Currently, taxpayers who are seeking a review of the level of interest charged by the ATO can only do so by making an application for judicial review in accordance with the terms of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR). This is a costly and lengthy process.

Tax administration would therefore be improved if an internal review process of a structure similar to that adopted for MMTEI investors was adopted for EBA taxpayers. Such a process would be a quicker, less expensive and more transparent review mechanism for the remission of interest than that which currently exists for such taxpayers.

However, any such review process would need to operate according to the overriding principle that all individual circumstances relating to particular taxpayers are taken into account during the operation of this process.

In particular, considerations of the extent to which taxpayers who are subject to this review process are members of a particular group, or share other certain characteristics of other taxpayers in the same process, should not override considerations of the conduct and circumstances of each individual.

Tax Office Position

8.29 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.30 In response to the Inspector-General's 2004 review, the Tax Office established a process whereby EBA taxpayers could apply to an internal panel to review an original request for the remission of interest.

8.31 Case sampling undertaken by the Inspector-General in respect of this review process revealed that an appropriate examination of taxpayer's individual conduct and circumstances had been undertaken in line with the key finding180 In addition, appropriate procedural information is in place to ensure that Tax Office staff are aware of their obligation to carry out this type of examination.

8.32 The availability of this internal review process has been made transparent to taxpayers by notification in:

  • Tax Office media release Tax Office improves GIC administration (18 November 2004);
  • Tax Office fact sheet Employee Benefit Arrangements181;
  • letters forwarded to EBA participants shortly following the release of the Inspector-General's 2004 review;
  • letters forwarded to EBA participants who have unsuccessfully applied for a remission of interest.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Key Finding 7

Taxpayers who are members of groups of taxpayers in dispute with the ATO over arrangements frequently share a range of common features. Some of these features were identified by the ATO and used to determine the final settlement offer that was made to the majority of MMTEI investors. In the ATO's view, these common features suggested the existence of exceptional circumstances which justified applying an interest remission policy which led to the interest charge being reduced to nil.

The present ATO treatment of pre- and post-amended assessment interest charges for taxpayers involved in EBAs has focussed principally on the nature of the arrangement giving rise to the particular dispute. For taxpayers involved in three kinds of EBAs full interest has been charged while for taxpayers involved in one form of EBA a reduced interest rate has been applied.

This focus on the nature of the arrangement in EBA disputes appears to have led to taxpayers involved in EBA disputes receiving interest remission outcomes which are inconsistent with those received by other groups of taxpayers. It has also led to taxpayers involved in certain types of EBAs receiving interest remission outcomes which are not consistent with those applied to taxpayers involved in other forms of EBAs.

Tax Office Position

8.33 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.34 In implementing major steps 3 and 4 (see above) and by improving its website and direct communication with taxpayers, the Tax Office achieved greater consistency in interest remission outcomes in line with the recommendation.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Implementation of subsidiary findings

Subsidiary Finding 1

The current ATO Receivables Policy only deals with the remission of the interest charge due to ATO delay in the issuing of an amended assessment once all information and evidence has been gathered and the ATO has formed a view.

Tax administration could be improved if the interest remission policy also specifically set out how the remission power would be exercised where the ATO has contributed to the delay during the pre-amended assessment period due to operational reasons or some uncertainty as to the operation of the law.

This could be similar to the approach adopted in previous ATO guidelines, such as Taxation Ruling IT 2517.

Tax Office Position

8.35 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.36 Subsidiary finding 1 has been specifically addressed at paragraphs 47–69 of PS LA 2006/8.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 2

Taxpayers would benefit if the Commissioner produced a simple guide to the remission of the interest charge, similar to an ATO Fact Sheet, outlining the process for requesting remission of the interest charge and the supporting information that the ATO requires.

Tax Office Position

8.37 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.38 The Tax Office has published a number of fact sheets that outline the process for requesting the remission of interest charge as well as the supporting information that is required by the Tax Office.182

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 3

Taxpayers would benefit from the Commissioner publishing more supplementary information dealing with the remission of the interest charge. For example, greater guidance could be provided in the form of more ATO Interpretative Decisions being released and referred to in the ATO interest charge remission guidelines.

Tax Office Position

8.39 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.40 As outlined previously, the Tax Office has provided supplementary information in line with this subsidiary finding in the form of PS LA 2006/8 as well as through a number of supporting guides, fact sheets and media releases.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 4

Taxpayers would benefit if, in relation to pre-amended assessment interest, the Commissioner provided upon request the factors considered relevant to the decision to maintain, remit or reduce the statutory interest charge.

Tax Office Position

8.41 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.42 As outlined in Key Finding 2, the Tax Office has provided taxpayers with the information suggested in this subsidiary finding via the publication of PS LA 2006/8 as well as associated guidelines and fact sheets regarding EBAs.

8.43 A further point in respect of this subsidiary finding is that audit finalisation letters include a summary of the rationale for penalty and interest.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 5

Tax administration could be improved if the interest remission policy specifically set out how the remission power would be exercised for pre-amended assessment interest in instances where:

  • no penalty is imposed due to the taxpayer's previous good compliance record in accordance with the ATO Compliance Model;
  • the taxpayer has made a voluntary disclosure to the Commissioner regarding their taxation position and there is no evidence of any prior intention to avoid the payment of tax;
  • there is reasonable and positive cooperation by the taxpayer; and
  • there is evidence of a general administrative practice by the Commissioner supporting the approach taken by the taxpayer.

Such an approach would be similar to that adopted in previous ATO rulings and would serve to promote and encourage voluntary compliance by taxpayers.

Tax Office Position

8.44 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.45 The Tax Office has specifically addressed all points included in this subsidiary finding as follows:

  • no penalty is imposed due to the taxpayer's previous good compliance record in accordance with the ATO Compliance Model — via paragraph 84 of PS LA 2006/8;
  • the taxpayer has made a voluntary disclosure to the Commissioner regarding their taxation position and there is no evidence of any prior intention to avoid the payment of tax — via paragraphs 81 to 85 of PS LA 2006/8;
  • there is reasonable and positive cooperation by the taxpayer — via paragraphs 72 to 73 of PS LA 2006/8;
  • there is evidence of a general administrative practice by the Commissioner supporting the approach taken by the taxpayer — via paragraphs 99 to 107 of PS LA 2006/8.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 6

Taxpayers would benefit if the ATO adopted a case management arrangement for finalising the total amount, including interest, which taxpayers must pay to finalise their dispute.

Tax Office Position

8.46 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.47 An end-to-end process has been implemented by the Tax Office in finalising remaining scheme cases. Settlements for taxpayers involve agreement on primary tax, penalty, and interest (including agreed rates applicable to payment arrangements). Tax agents also have access to the various Tax Office portals which provide current debts with updated interest charged.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 7

The ATO policy document dealing with the remission of interest should clearly articulate the type of key factors the Commissioner considers relevant to the remission of pre-amended assessment interest. Taxation Ruling IT 2517 is a useful model in that it contains an explanation of relevant factors and worked examples.

Tax Office Position

8.48 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.49 As discussed in Key Finding 2, on 1 August 2006 the Tax Office released PS LA 2006/8 which (amongst other matters) deals with the remission of GIC that accrues in the period prior to the amendment or revision of a tax liability. This practice statement includes the use of worked examples to provide further guidance.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 8

Tax administration would be improved if the ATO, as a matter of fairness, communicated to all EBA participants that the existence of prior non-binding ATO advice, including advice provided to an adviser in respect of unnamed clients, may entitle them to receive a partial reduction in the rate of interest.

Tax Office Position

8.50 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.51 The Tax Office explicitly included this information in its settlement framework for EBA cases on its website and in its fact sheet titled Options for employee benefit arrangement participants. All EBA participants were invited to seek further remissions based upon, inter alia, their having relied upon Tax Office advice. Where this advice was provided to the Tax Office by any participant, it was accepted as applying to all participants in a particular arrangement, who had claimed to have relied upon that advice.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 9

Tax administration would be improved if the ATO ensured that in all cases where interest remission decisions are made the reasons for these decisions are appropriately recorded on the file at the relevant time. This procedure would more readily allow these decisions to be the subject of internal ATO review (as recommended above) and also any external ATO review.

Tax Office Position

8.52 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.53 Case sampling undertaken by the Inspector-General demonstrated that the practices referred to in this subsidiary finding are appropriately applied.

Implementation Status: Implemented

Subsidiary Finding 12

Tax administration would be improved if ATO communications to EBA taxpayers specifically made reference to the fact that ATO delay is a ground for interest remission.

Tax Office Position

8.54 Implemented.

IGT Analysis

8.55 All EBA taxpayers were advised through a mail-out of the fact sheet titled Employee benefit arrangements that ATO delay is a ground for interest remission. Where there is a period of unreasonable delay, taxpayers are advised separately of that period of delay.

Implementation Status: Implemented


171 Many participants (particularly those involved in employee benefit trusts) had also received alternative fringe benefits tax assessments. These alternative assessments were only withdrawn upon settlement. As well, shortfall penalties of 50 per cent or so were remitted to 5 or 10 per cent.

172 Tax Office improves GIC administration — Tax Office media release 04/78 (18 November 2004).

173 The review focused on identifying whether the income tax laws achieved a fair balance between protecting the rights of individual taxpayers and protecting the revenue for the benefit of the whole Australian community. The review examined a range of issues, including the statutory timeframes for amending assessments, the duration of the audit process, the reliance that taxpayers should be able to place on Tax Office advice and aspects of the general interest charge.

174 This being a welcomed change from income tax shortfalls attracting GIC with its seven percentage point uplift over the base rate from the due date of the original assessment until paid.

175 PS LA 2006/8 (at para 34).

176 Ibid (at para 35).

177 Ibid (at paras 62-64).

178 PS LA 2006/8 (at paras 72-73).

179 PS LA 2006/8 (at para 46).

180 Case sampling demonstrated that the extent to which a particular taxpayer was a member of a particular group or shared other certain characteristics of other taxpayers in the process did not override considerations of the conduct and circumstances of the individual taxpayer.

181 Tax Office fact sheet Nat 11998-11.2004.

182 For example, Tax Office fact sheet Employee Benefit Arrangements.