ATO releases new guidelines to combat identity theft
ATO and the Tax Practitioners Board have developed new client verification guidelines for tax practitioners, with criminals using increasingly sophisticated attempts to steal taxpayer identities
In consultation with the Tax Practitioners Board, the ATO has developed client verification guidelines for registered tax practitioners and BAS agents using Online services for agents or practitioner lodgement services through software.
The guideline is to be read in conjunction with the TPB’s Practice Note TPB(PN) 5/2022 – Proof of identity requirements for client verification.
By following the guideline, the ATO said tax practitioners would have met the requirements prescribed by the TPB.
“Failure to take appropriate proof of identity steps to verify a client’s or individual representative’s identity may result in a breach of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 and disciplinary actions by the TPB,” the ATO warned.
The ATO explained that the guideline is part of the TPB’s and ATO’s transition towards mandating minimum standards of client verification.
“We will continue to consult with the TPB and the tax profession before mandating these minimum requirements. You are encouraged to adopt these standards on a voluntary basis between now and then,” the Tax Office stated.
“These guidelines should be read as minimum requirements. You are encouraged to go beyond these requirements if you still have concerns about a person’s identity, even if the minimum requirements are met.”
Verification requirements
The guideline states that while the ATO does not expect tax practitioners to go back and verify their entire client base, it is asking tax practitioners to perform identity checks on all new clients, including representatives of new clients and new representatives of existing clients.
Tax practitioners should also perform identity checks where they have concerns that existing clients may not be who they say they are, it said.
The guidelines advise against retaining identification documents as this may increase the risk of being targeted by criminals.
“Instead, you should maintain contemporaneous records to demonstrate that proof of identity steps were undertaken,” it stated.
Under the guideline, tax practitioners must verify two separate proofs of identity using one or a combination of methods. The exception is when a primary photographic proof of identity document, such as a drivers licence, can be verified using the visual method.
The guidelines provide details on each of the methods. The visual method involves visually checking a client’s identification documents, which is suitable when interacting with the client in person or by video.
Another method is comparing data provided by the client against data of ATO systems. While this can be used for remote interactions and digital interactions through software, it cannot be used to prove the identity of an individual representative of a client unless the authorised representative is also the client, the guideline cautioned.
The third method is comparing a client’s details on government-issued identity documents against details held by a document verification service (DVS) provider. This method can be used to prove the identity of an individual representative of a client, the guideline stated.
Online agents
The ATO said it recognises that more registered tax practitioners are adopting online practices with minimal agent-client face-to-face or physical contact.
“Online agents who provide services through a web, cloud- or software-based customer portal must adopt stronger and more stringent client verification processes,” it said.
The ATO also warned that where accounting firms are creating an online portal or software, there are additional requirements that they will need to meet to ensure storage, transmission of the data maintains a high level of security.
“For example, you need to ensure that ATO data you access is not open to cybercrime,” the Tax Office said.
The ATO said that strong client verification helps protect tax practitioners, their clients and Australia’s tax and superannuation systems from misuse and abuse due to identity theft and related issues.
“With an ever-increasing reliance on technology and remote work practices, the risks presented by this continue to rise. There are increasingly widespread and sophisticated attempts by criminals to commit refund fraud by stealing taxpayer identities,” the ATO warned.
“This has devastating financial consequences to affected individuals and a flow-on effect to the Australian community. Our experience with tax practitioners affected by identity breaches has highlighted varying levels of discrepancies in client verification practices.”
Miranda Brownlee
01 February 2022
smsfadviser.com
Latest Newsletters
Hot Issues
- Aged care report goes to the heart of Australia’s tax debate
- Removed super no longer protected from creditors: court
- ATO investigating 16.5k SMSFs over valuation compliance
- The 2025 Financial Year Tax & Super Changes You Need to Know!
- Investment and economic outlook, March 2024
- The compounding benefits from reinvesting dividends
- Three things to consider when switching your super
- Oldest Buildings in the World.
- Illegal access nets $637 million
- Trustee decisions are at their own discretion: expert
- Regular reviews and safekeeping of documents vital: expert
- Latest stats back up research into SMSF longevity and returns: educator
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2024
- Planning financially for a career break
- Could your SMSF do with more diversification?
- Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
- Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
- Quarterly reporting regime means communication now paramount: expert
- Plan now to take advantage of 5-year carry forward rule: expert
- Why investors are firmly focused on interest rates
- Super literacy low for cash-strapped
- Four timeless principles for investing success
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2024
- Wheat Production by Country
- Time to start planning for stage 3 tax cuts: technical manager
- Millions of Australians lose by leaving savings in default MySuper funds
- Vanguard economic and market outlook for 2024: A return to sound money
- An investment year of ups and downs
Article archive
- January - March 2024
- October - December 2023
- July - September 2023
- April - June 2023
- January - March 2023
- October - December 2022
- July - September 2022
- April - June 2022
- January - March 2022
- October - December 2021
- July - September 2021
- April - June 2021
- January - March 2021
- October - December 2020
- July - September 2020
- April - June 2020
- January - March 2020
- October - December 2019
- July - September 2019
- April - June 2019
- January - March 2019
- October - December 2018
- July - September 2018
- April - June 2018
- January - March 2018
- October - December 2017
- July - September 2017
- April - June 2017
- January - March 2017
- October - December 2016
- July - September 2016
- April - June 2016
- January - March 2016
- October - December 2015
- July - September 2015
- April - June 2015
January - March 2022 archive
- Mistakes to avoid when markets are turbulent
- Fresh research challenges guidance on SMSF minimum balances
- GDP by country since 1800
- Risking your retirement
- A total returns approach to rebalancing
- SMSFs still experiencing delays with SuperStream
- APRA proposes updates to super data transparency
- Why investment predications can be likened to weather forecasts
- What to expect in 2022
- Important detail highlighted in legacy pension draft regulations
- Vaccination rates (Dose)
- ‘Catastrophic consequences’: Government lobbied on NALI rules
- ATO releases new guidelines to combat identity theft
- Volatile markets underscore importance of discipline
- Financial burden of COVID sees rise in illegal loans to members
- 6-member SMSFs proving popular for older trustees
- ATO holds off on TBAR compliance
- Bull vs Bear
- One of the most read articles in 2021
- Excuses limited for late death benefit payments
- Advisers warned on joint entity hurdles for ‘sophisticated investor’ qualification