3.1 Submissions to the review expressed concern with the quality of initial compliance decisions (that is, those in risk reviews and audits) by SME officers and the time and effort needed to raise the issues to a sufficient level within the ATO for appropriate review and resolution.

3.2 It should be noted that the IGT has previously examined compliance decision-making in a number of reviews and recommended action be taken to improve initial compliance decisions.40

3.3 The SME business line, itself, has a number of technical panels designed to improve and test compliance officers' decisions making. The SME business line also incorporates control points in the process to review compliance officers' work before decisions to amend liabilities are made, including:

  • the team leader and embedded STL officer may review and approve of decisions;
  • the National Case Assessment Team (NCAT) approves any case for audit action;
  • the Technical Excellence panel reviews large cases, cases involving complex technical issues, and any decision to levy more than $1 million in penalties;
  • SME Case Leadership, COE and/or TCN may be involved in more complex cases; and
  • Part IVA decisions are referred to the General Anti-Avoidance Rule Panel for review.

3.4 Substantial recent measures have also been undertaken by the SME business line to improve the quality of its initial compliance decisions. However, there is scope for further improvement in relation to engagement between the active compliance (AC) and interpretative assistance (IA) areas of the SME business line. Other areas for improvement also include, using the Facts and Evidence Worksheet as a means to formulate and develop technical positions, better understanding the reasons why some initial compliance decisions are not upheld on review, resourcing in the IA areas, improving processes involving suggestions of evasion by SME officers and improving the Integrated Quality Framework (IQF) review of SME compliance work. These areas are discussed in more detail below.

Risk identification and case selection

3.5 Optimal risk identification and case selection are essential to assure the community that revenue collection is appropriately conducted and the compliance burden for taxpayers is minimised and proportionate to identified risks.

3.6 At the broadest level, the ATO's compliance program identifies priority risks to the tax system for potential review. Population segments may be categorised in different ways, such as according to risk, taxpayer type or other factors. The ATO risk rating 'engine' identifies a pool of potential cases for compliance activities according to the business rules for that engine. Compliance officers are then allocated a review case from this pool and seek to address the risk or risks identified and prioritise required action. If after a review the risk is identified as requiring audit, the NCAT reviews such cases and will decide whether to approve the case for audit or not.

3.7 The IGT is of the view that where ATO compliance teams identify what they consider to be further potential risks in the carriage of their (already NCAT-approved) work, a senior officer with the appropriate skill and capability must subject the issue to an appropriate internal approval process before audit teams commit resources to investigative action. Stakeholders have made representation to the IGT that this process is not working as well as it should, giving rise to unnecessary compliance burdens for taxpayers.

Recommendation 3.1

If the ATO wishes to expand the scope of a compliance activity to encompass issues that were not identified at the point of case selection, then it should only do so after subjecting the issues to an appropriate approval process such as business case approval or risk review. This is designed to ensure that the compliance activity is warranted and that overall compliance costs are minimised.

ATO response: Agree

We will reinforce our current process which is that the case officer will discuss the proposed change in scope with their EL2.1 team leader and agree on an outcome which will be documented via case notes in Siebel and communicated to the taxpayer.

3.8 The SME business line also has a stated aspirational strike rate target of 80 per cent for its cases. SME business line analysis in 2010 revealed that the audit strike rate has improved significantly over the 30 months between July 2007 and December 2009 from 54 per cent to around 70 per cent. However, the improvement appears to have reached a plateau at approximately 70 per cent. This suggests that to reach the 80 per cent target current approaches may have run their course and new ideas need to be considered.

3.9 The IGT notes that care should be taken with setting aspirational measures as they can sometimes drive behaviours that cause problems in other areas or merely shift the problem to another part of the process — see for example, the IGT's discussion of the two-year timeframe for large business audits in the IGT's Large Business Audit and Risk Review report.41

3.10 The ANAO is currently conducting a review of the ATO's management of compliance in the SME market with particular focus, among others, on business risk profiling, including an examination of the techniques used to identify and narrow the risk pool, manage risks and select cases.

3.11 The IGT, in the context of this review, is only addressing risk identification from the point of case selection. The IGT has previously raised the ATO's risk differentiation framework and related risk processes as a potential review topic.42

Level of disputation

3.12 The level of disputation arising from active compliance activities can be due to a number of factors. This may include a taxpayer's confidence in their position, financial capacity and confidence in the ATO's review or objection processes, to name a few.

3.13 Over the last four years the HWI taskforce has raised over $1.5 billion in tax liabilities. Approximately 15 per cent of that amount was not disputed. Over half remains in dispute.

Table 6: Total liabilities raised by the HWI taskforce during 1 July 2006 — 30 June 2010 according to whether settled, disputed or not disputed
  $ $
Total Liabilties Raised   1,513,140,508
Settled
Collected under Settlement Arrangement 416,808,501 476,288,156
Reversed due to Settlement 59,479,655
Disputed
Collected - In Dispute 40,192,467
Uncollected in Dispute 652,678,174
Reversed on dispute 110,784,129 803,654,770
Not Disputed
Collected - Not in Dispute 138,626,845
Uncollected - Not in Dispute 93,847,916 232,474,761
Penalty Remissions 722,821
Total 1,513,140,508

Source: ATO communication with IGT, 26 March 2011

Table 7: Total liabilities raised by the HWI taskforce during 1 July 2006 — 30 June 2010 according to whether collected, uncollected or reversed.
  $ $
Total Liabilties Raised   1,513,140,508
Collected
Collected under Settlement Arrangement 416,808,501
Collected - Not in Dispute 138,626,845
Collected - In Dispute 40,192,467 595,627,813
Uncollected
Uncollected in Dispute 652,678,174
Uncollected - Not in Dispute 93,847,916 746,526,090
Reversed
Penalty Remissions 722,821
Reversed due to Settlement 59,479,655
Reversed on dispute 110,784,129 170,986,605
Total 1,513,140,508

Source: ATO communication with IGT, 26 March 2011

3.14 In the above tables, the finalised cases amount to over $820 million in raised tax liabilities. Of those finalised cases, over 20 per cent of amounts were reversed in remissions, settlement or dispute.

3.15 The level of disputation in HWI amendment cases over the last 4 years averages 85 per cent. ATO research shows that liabilities raised in HWI compliance cases were reduced 30 per cent in objection and that 40 per cent of taxpayer objections are upheld fully or in part. The S4 risk review project is in the fourth year of risk reviews, so the development of S4 taxpayer audits and disputes have not matured at this stage.

3.16 Across all of SME and as at May 2011, the SME business line was tracking at approximately 42 per cent of the ATO position being upheld in objections. The SME business line identified:

a need to work more closely with IA and look to identify where we can improve our evidence to support our technical decisions.43

3.17 Selected IA teams gave some views in a recently commissioned ATO report. Amongst other things, it observed ATO officer's impressions that there was room to improve the quality of upstream compliance work:

Some audits are reaching objection in a poor state. The most common complaints are:

  • lack of evidence;
  • no statement of facts;
  • poor document management; and
  • lack of properly consider position — protective assessments due to time constraints and assessment issued while audit still underway

These audit practices place undue pressures on the objection phase and require the objection officer to effective conduct the 'audit'. This problem is further exacerbated because IA officers do not appear to make the best use of STL officers and case leaders. This problem is directly linked to the next point.

There were a number of anecdotal references from stakeholders to the S&ME program that indicated the quality of audits in some areas of S&ME needed to be significantly improved. The general consensus was that complex audits were generally done well but some of the medium and low end work was 'scrappy'.44

3.18 During the review the ATO advised the IGT that:

We will be taking part in the upcoming Compliance sub plan dispute review processes and will implement any recommendations relevant to S&ME active compliance work which flow from that review.

We are currently working on an improved reporting interface with the Interpretative Assistance area. This will ensure we can track audit cases which proceed to an objection and thereby undertake ongoing analysis and review of the issues which are being dealt with in objection cases. We expect this work will be completed by March 2012.45

3.19 Relevantly, the SME Executive supported four aspirational measures on 30 April 2010. Among these measures, one aspiration is for objections to be legitimately upheld in taxpayer's favour in 20 per cent of cases. On 17 May 2011, the SME business line's Active Compliance Business Management Committee (AC BMC) met to discuss how to improve progress towards this aspiration. Among the relevant factors discussed at that meeting, was a need to improve the evidence to support technical positions and improve the relationship between the AC and IA areas.

3.20 The IGT believes that a level of caution is required in setting aspirations to have taxpayers' views upheld on objections in only 20 per cent of cases. Setting aspirational measures of this nature can sometimes drive behaviours that cause problems in other areas or merely shift the problem to another part of the process — see for example, the IGT's discussion of the two-year timeframe for large business audits in the IGT's Large Business Audit and Risk Review report. In the IGT's view, the aspiration should be recast to focus ATO officers on ensuring that initial compliance decisions are sustainable on external review — that is, that they are upheld when reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the courts.

3.21 The level of disputation with SME compliance decisions is too high. Improving the engagement between the SME business line's AC and IA areas would improve AC's awareness of common issues that give rise to increased disputation, afford AC an opportunity to make changes to avoid that disputation and minimise the imposition of unnecessary compliance costs on taxpayers.

3.22 In terms of early and alternative mechanisms to resolve disputes, such mechanisms should also be considered. The IGT will examine the use of such mechanisms in his review into the ATO's use of Early and Alternative Dispute Resolution (commenced in July 2011).

HWI objection work

3.23 Objection work in the SME business line is done by IA officers. As at 30 June 2011, current staffing in the IA area is approximately 111 FTE staff, including administrative staff and management.

3.24 The work flows of objection work over the 2009-10 year are set out in appendix 2.

Quality of objections

3.25 A recently commissioned ATO internal report observed that while SME was meeting its expected service standards on a quantitative basis, there were concerns when quality was considered:

[After recounting certain internal SME management reports] It is unnecessary to restate the results in these reports but it is useful to elaborate on some of the key issues identified in them. For example, it was immediately apparent that S&ME is meeting or exceeding most service standards, and workloads are being adequately managed. However, equally, there were many unanswered questions associated with the data when consideration was given to the qualitative assessment of the work as apposed to the quantitative measures.

The following summarises the key qualitative observations that can be gleaned from the metrics provided as part of this review:

  • The stock on hand of IA and objection work is increasing. Interestingly, the increase in objection stock is not explained simply due to an increase in the number of objections received, but also due to a reduction in the rate of completions.
  • A significant number of objections are adjusted on objection (approaching 50 per cent). Although this figure may be alarming on face value because it suggests that audit cases are not being upheld during Objection — consideration needs to be given to the nature of the objection (for example, whether it relates to only part of the audit or only to penalties).
  • Aspiration targets are not being met — aspiration of 6 cases per FTE is currently at 5.18 per FTE. Aspiration of 20 per cent of objection adjustments is a challenge considering the results shown above.
  • The percentage of HWI objections to HWI audits has increased exponentially from July 2008 to March 2011 [In 2008-09, less than 5 per cent of HWI audits were objected to, however, in 2010-11, more than 20 per cent of audits were objected to].
  • Statistics suggest that IA HWI objections are being handled efficiently, with relatively low cost per unit in processing these objections when compared to objections still in HWI area, (however, there is no way to distinguish cases based on the complexity of the work).

Overall, the data analysis was useful and the inferences gleaned (above) from this data were consistent with the issues being raised by staff and the S&ME Executive.

The data is showing an increase in cycle times of objections and an increase in the number of objections being allowed (whether in part or full). The obvious concern is whether objection officers are unnecessarily 're-auditing' the issues or indeed are not making best use of available resources (such as the STL and case leaders) to progress the objections.

In examining the concerns relating to cycle times and unfavourable objection rates, it becomes apparent that the reasons for delays in objections are related to many of the issues identified throughout this paper and addressed elsewhere — so it is unnecessary to repeat it here.

However, for the purposes of this section it is important to acknowledge that it is very difficult to make sense of the raw data to explain why these cases are not being managed effectively.

... Short of conducting a manual review of objections, it is difficult properly assess the reasons for this pattern of finalised objections. However, it is useful to outline some of the observations of possible contributing factors to the delays and unfavourable results of objections:

  • Quality of audits — there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that a number of audits leading to objection have poorly set out statement of facts, poor document management and a lack of a properly considered position ATO Position (sometimes due to protective assessments due to time constraints or assessment issued while audit still underway).
  • Issuing assessment while audit is still in progress — creates greater demand on objections officers.
  • STL officers not being used strategically — STL officers are engaged at the request of staff by escalation) but there may be cases where leadership should appoint STL or STL proactively search for higher risk objection cases
  • Profiling capability levels of teams and allocating work appropriately — it is important that the capability and experience of IA and Objection teams are properly assessed and that this information is used to manage workflow.

There was no opportunity to collect evidence to test these assertions — however, staff were clearly concerned that these factors did contribute to the pattern of completed objections. The fact that these matters were raised in the course of the review would suggest that future case callovers attempt to focus on these matters.46

3.26 In the IGT's view, with respect to HWI compliance activities, the level of disputation, weight of objections upheld and the proportion of liability reversed on review indicate a high incidence of unsustainable initial ATO compliance positions. In a number of situations this is imposing very significant compliance costs on taxpayers for tax positions that on a more considered view should not have been raised. More work could be done to identify the reasons for initial compliance decisions not being upheld on review. Appropriate action needs to be taken to address those reasons.

Recommendation 3.2

The ATO should:

  1. improve its initial compliance decision making capability to ensure sustainable decisions are made in the first instance; and
  2. identify the reasons for initial compliance decisions not being upheld on review and take action to address those reasons.

ATO response: Agree

Improving technical decision making remains a key priority for S&ME.

System based reporting to monitor and report on the outcomes of all objection cases has now been implemented. This reporting will be used to feedback into the audit process to ensure that our audit decision making is constantly improving.

Consideration of Part IVA issues

3.27 The Case Leadership's call over report for the period March to May 2010, identified a trend of SME compliance officers regularly using Part IVA in cases and questioned whether alternatives had been properly considered. Case Leadership questioned whether:

  • all other legislative avenues being properly considered by the case team before resorting to the Part IVA provisions?;
  • some legislative provisions or ATO rulings so unworkable that the case team is only left with the option of pursuing Part IVA? (for example, issues with the application of IT 2450 in the Property, Building and Construction sector);
  • the case teams have enough capability, or access to adequate support, to build a strong counterfactual? (Case Leadership made a conscious effort to ensure teams in the process of building counterfactuals were made aware of relevant avenues for assistance, including but not limited to, other case teams who have recently undertaken the process); and
  • do TCN have an adequate level of resources to deal with so many Part IVA issues?47

3.28 In the IGT's view, there appears to be a number of general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) matters considered by the ATO and the courts that raise a number of issues for the administration of the tax system. These issues are beyond the scope of this review, but the IGT may consider them in relation to his future work program.

Evasion

3.29 Some private sector submissions to the IGT review claim that allegations of evasion are suggested by SME officers for several reasons, including as leverage to extend the periods for review. In an extreme example, one tax adviser claimed that SME officers asked for information outside the periods for review because of suspected evasion. In this case the taxpayer's Senior Counsel opinion supported the position adopted by the taxpayer, there was no penalty imposed by the ATO on the taxpayer and the ATO had earlier acknowledged that this was a case where two reasonable people could come to different conclusions.

3.30 The SME business line has a procedure of internally reviewing any conclusion of evasion before applying it in a taxpayer's case. Also, there are internal measures that require SME officers to refer any suspected fraud to the ATOs' Serious Non-Compliance (SNC) area. Also any cases that involve 75 per cent penalties are required to be considered for fraud referral.

3.31 The IGT notes that although conclusions of evasion are internally reviewed, suggestions of evasion are not. Some submissions commented that the suggestions appeared to be offered as a 'magic bullet' in lieu of other legal reasons. They also commented that SME officers making such suggestions did not appear to understand the evidence that was required to establish a finding of evasion.

3.32 In the IGT's view, there is room to improve internal processes so that any suggestions of evasion are internally reviewed by senior officers before they are used as a reason — for example, to investigate matters occurring outside of the periods for review. Where evasion is suggested, a base level of documentation and evidentiary basis needs to be provided to the taxpayer. While the taxpayer may disagree with those allegations, at the very least, the taxpayer will understand the reasoning raised. If evasion is genuinely considered a risk by ATO senior management, the case should be referred to the SME technical panel for further action and the taxpayer notified of this action.

Recommendation 3.3

To improve internal processes dealing with suspicions of evasion, the ATO should:

  1. ensure that any suggestions of evasion are internally reviewed by senior officers before they are communicated to taxpayers and/or used as a reason to investigate matters; and
  2. in the event evasion is considered a risk by those senior officers, the case should be referred to the SME technical panel for further action and the taxpayer be notified of this action.

ATO response: Agree

This is our current business process and we will ensure that all staff are aware of this and apply this process to their case work.

Improving officers' technical discipline — use of the Facts and Evidence Worksheet

3.33 Confidence in ATO technical decision making depends upon the ATO demonstrating it has based its decisions on cogent reasoning and relevant evidence.

3.34 The Facts and Evidence Worksheet provides a means to better focus compliance officers' attention on technical decision making including the legislative requirements, ATO administrative requirements, facts and relevance or application of evidence obtained. It provides a framework for officers to quickly narrow investigations to the evidence needed to robustly support technical decisions.

3.35 In February 2009, the SME Executive endorsed the rollout of the Facts and Evidence Worksheet for use in the following audit cases:

  • cases likely to go to litigation;
  • HWI cases;
  • S4 cases; and
  • more contentious cases.

3.36 There is no SME business line requirement for its officers to use the worksheet to formulate a position. The only requirement is that the worksheet be used to ultimately document the decision. This approach presents a level of duplication with other systems, such as Siebel, where facts and evidence is merely recorded. The SME Executive has asked that the integration of the worksheet with Siebel be further explored.

3.37 In late 2009, and following the IGT's settlement report,48 the SME Compliance Leadership decided to make the Facts and Evidence Worksheet compulsory in all SME audit cases. The SME business line's Technical Excellence Practice (now subsumed into the STL area) reviewed SME officers' use of the Facts and Evidence Worksheet from November 2009.

3.38 In April 2010, the SME Executive were made aware of the findings of that review:

1.4 It is early days in the use of the worksheet but a number of general compliance case officers commented that they only use the worksheet because it is mandatory and do not see it as useful.

1.5 Most of the worksheets reviewed were incomplete and many were in the very early stages.

1.6 There are mixed views at this stage about whether the worksheet has improved the quality of fact and evidence collection and documentation.

1.7 According to most case officers, completing the worksheet is extending the cycle time for cases.

1.8 Better guidelines and training (using case studies and examples) on the use of the worksheet are required.

1.9 The format and headings in the worksheet could be improved to guide case officers and to provide a more useful and logical tool.

1.10 There appears to be a poor understanding of how to break down the elements of a legislative provision as well as what constitutes facts and evidence.

1.11 The worksheet at this stage does not appear to be used as anticipated except in a small number of cases that were completed very well.49

3.39 That review made a number of recommendations, including the following:

7.1 Worksheet training and guidelines

  • Develop and provide revised training and guidelines around use of the Facts and Evidence worksheet based on workshops and practical examples. Information and training is required on how to break down the elements of a legislative provision, what constitutes facts and evidence and how to document and reference that evidence.
  • Follow up workshop based training for current case officers using case studies and examples.
  • Build explanations of terms (for example, Facts) and provide simple examples into the worksheet itself. This could be done in the Heading fields.

7.2 Collect and provide good examples of completed and sanitised worksheets, for training purposes, and to provide feedback to case officers of the value of the worksheet.

7.3 Worksheet format and headings

  • Review and improve format of worksheet so that fields align (for example, facts align with relevant evidence which then aligns with the relevant conclusions), columns automatically adjust for large sections of text This would improve the usefulness of the worksheet for quality review, decision making and transfer of information to position papers and Siebel.

7.4 Regular review of worksheets in progress by TEP members and team leaders. Worksheets to be reviewed at regular periods throughout their completion to provide feedback, assistance and timely rectification of gaps and issues.

7.5 Include review of the worksheet as an IQF [Integrated Quality Framework] requirement.

7.6 Develop a flexible approach to when and how the worksheet should be completed so that it is only being completed for the most important issues of the audit case.

The Facts and Evidence Worksheet has the greatest benefit if it is commenced at the stage when the case officer has a well developed risk hypothesis and when it is applied in a targeted fashion. That is, the case officer should focus the worksheet towards satisfying the most critical elements needed to prove their case. The other relevant undisputed elements only require a summary to show that they have been taken into consideration.

7.7 Conduct a second review of the use of the facts and evidence worksheet in 6-12 months.

… 7.9 The S&ME Executive to champion the benefits and value of the Worksheet to S&ME Audit staff.50

3.40 At the 15 April 2010 SME Executive meeting it was observed that the worksheet 'was very helpful when dealing with objections and has the ability to improve our dispute resolution, if done properly' especially when 'a lot more HWI taxpayers appear to be challenging amendments'.51

3.41 Additionally, some private sector submissions set out a number of examples in which it is claimed that SME officers demonstrated a lack of appropriate consideration of issues and/or legislation. Among other things, they claim that an overly onerous evidentiary burden was placed on taxpayers in some areas.

3.42 In the IGT's view, improving discipline in dealing with the evidentiary basis for active compliance decisions (including primary tax and penalty decisions) would improve the sustainability of SME compliance decisions. Using the Facts and Evidence Worksheet as a means to formulate views would likely improve the overall level of technical decision making, generally narrow the scope of information requests, facilitate a focused and evidence-based discussion with taxpayers on the issues with a view to establishing a shared understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each parties' case, improve overall dispute management and reduce the number of objections.

Recommendation 3.4

To improve the evidentiary basis for compliance decisions, the ATO should require SME officers to use the Facts and Evidence Worksheet to:

  1. guide their inquiries and formulate views from the point at which a risk hypothesis has been developed through to the finalisation of position papers;
  2. improve SME officers' (including those who sign off on compliance officers' work):
    1. ability to break down the elements of a legislative provision;
    2. to determine what constitutes facts and evidence;
    3. how to address conflicting pieces of evidence
    4. that affidavits are a form of evidence; and
    5. what level of evidentiary burden is appropriate; and
  3. update worksheets as new information comes to light.

ATO response:

Agree

Integrated Quality Framework's (IQF) assurance of work quality

3.43 The ATO's IQF comprises six interrelated processes aimed at improving and assuring quality, including the quality assessment of compliance decisions.

3.44 IQF case assessors review all finalised penalty decisions and a sample of SME compliance cases, both finalised and in progress. There are local case assessors on site. The IQF team is aiming to develop dedicated HWI case assessors.

3.45 In relation to finalised or 'closed' cases, the IQF process involves randomly selecting a number of audits and reviews (in accordance with Australian Bureau of Statistics advice). They are not stratified according to taxpayer type or turnover. With HWI cases, the case assessor must physically sit with the case officer linked to the particular case because of systems access restrictions. This means that the IQF team relies on HWI officers to do the case assessment of their colleagues.

3.46 In relation to cases in progress or 'open' cases, case assessors aim to identify opportunities for improvement before final sign-off. Cases are selected from a cross section of risk projects and geographical spread. The assessment is done by the team leader and therefore will not identify any gaps in the team leader's knowledge.

3.47 The IQF team checks the case assessor's work by checking whether the rating matches the comments in the case report. They do not check whether there is evidence for the case assessor's comments.

3.48 In the IGT's view there is room to improve IQF reviews of SME officer's work, including in the following areas:

  • ensuring IQF review of S4 and HWI cases is done by experienced senior technical officers with expertise in S4 and HWI work;
  • stratifying IQF reviews according to the different population segments of the SME market;
  • improving case assessors' access to HWI cases for independent review; and
  • involving senior officers in open case reviews.

Recommendation 3.5

The ATO should improve IQF reviews of SME work, including:

  1. ensuring IQF review of S4 and HWI cases is done by experienced senior technical officers with expertise in S4 and HWI work (such as Case Leadership);
  2. stratifying IQF reviews according to the different population segments of the SME market;
  3. improving case assessors' access to HWI cases for independent review; and
  4. involving senior officers in open case reviews.

ATO response: Agree

Our IQF processes now include these items.


40 For example, Review into Aspects of the Tax Office's Settlement of Active Compliance Activities, December 2009, Sydney.

41 Report into the Australian Taxation Office's large business risk review and audit policies, procedures and practices, May 2011, Sydney.

42 Ibid.

43 Minutes of the 17 May 2011 the SME business line's Active Compliance Business Management Committee meeting, p. 6.

44 'Review of interpretative advice as part of the SM&E pipeline', a report commissioned by and prepared for the ATO's SME Executive, June 2011, p. 23.

45 Australian Taxation Office, written communication to the IGT, 23 September 2011.

46 'Review of interpretative advice as part of the SM&E pipeline', a report commissioned by and prepared for the ATO's SME Executive, June 2011, pp. 15-19.

47 'Summary note on S&ME Case Leadership Case Callovers', document attached to the agenda for the 30 June 2010 SME Executive meeting.

48 Review into Aspects of the Tax Office's Settlement of Active Compliance Activities, October 2009, Sydney.

49 'S&ME Facts & Evidence — S&ME Review of the use of the Facts and Evidence Worksheet in Audit Cases February 2010', p. 4, a document attached to the agenda for the 15 April 2010 SME Executive meeting.

50 Ibid, pp. 13-14.

51 Minutes to the 15 April 2010 SME Executive meeting, p. 2.