Topic: ATO’s “listening” initiative: how the Tax Office is addressing practitioner pain points

Last reviewed: 17/12/2025

Focus: Accounting Practice Analysis

ATO “Listening” Initiative 2025: Practitioner Pain Points

The ATO’s “listening” initiative is a structured program of consultation, co-design and feedback loops designed to reduce the administrative burden on Australian tax practitioners by improving digital services, clarifying guidance, and targeting systemic irritants such as telephony delays, portal instability, identity and authority processes, and error-prone lodgment experiences. In practical terms, the Tax Office is using practitioner feedback to prioritise service fixes (for example, call wait times and case management), strengthen online functionality through Online services for agents (OSFA) and associated digital programs, and refine guidance on complex risk areas that frequently generate disputes and rework.

Featured Answer: The ATO’s “listening” initiative is the Tax Office’s ongoing commitment to actively gather practitioner feedback and translate it into service improvements, digital upgrades, and clearer guidance. From an Australian accounting practice perspective, it most directly targets day-to-day pain points such as access and authorisations, OSFA functionality, telephony responsiveness, and avoidable compliance rework through better “right-first-time” design.

What is the ATO’s “listening” initiative, and why does it matter to practices?

It is established that the ATO’s contemporary engagement model relies on continuous consultation with the profession to identify friction points and prioritise fixes that improve compliance efficiency and service delivery. For practices, this matters because small service degradations compound across portfolios—particularly in BAS seasons, year-end, and when managing debt, super guarantee, and correspondence.

Formal consultation channels (professional association forums, stewardship groups, targeted consultations).
Digital relationship management (agent newsletters, OSFA updates, system maintenance communications).
Iterative improvements driven by agent feedback (workflow changes, improved guidance, refined forms, and escalations).

According to ATO communications and consultation structures (including the ATO consultation framework and stewardship groups published on ato.gov.au), practitioner experience is a specific design input—not an afterthought—because the agent channel is a primary conduit for correct lodgments and voluntary compliance.

How is the ATO identifying practitioner pain points in 2025?

Direct feedback from tax and BAS agents via consultative forums and professional bodies (e.g., CPA Australia, CA ANZ, IPA).
OSFA usability and outage/incident reporting signals (including known-issue patterns).
Telephony and case inventory metrics (queue times, call abandonment rates, repeat contact drivers).
Objection, dispute, and private ruling themes where unclear guidance drives rework.

Access and authority friction: Proving identity, setting up authorisations, and managing client linking.
OSFA reliability and usability: Performance issues, fragmented workflows, and limited self-serve resolution.
Telephony and escalation delays: Time lost chasing progress updates, especially for debt, remittance and account corrections.
Inconsistent outcomes: Variability in interpretation across channels leading to “double handling”.
Compliance rework: Rejected lodgments, mismatches, and avoidable follow-up correspondence.

What is the ATO actually changing to address practitioner pain points?

The ATO is addressing pain points through three practical levers: service delivery improvements, digital investment, and guidance/administrative simplification. The most important point for practices is that many fixes are incremental (small but meaningful) rather than one large transformation.

Better triaging of complex matters into appropriate work queues.
Clearer pathways for escalation (especially for time-sensitive BAS/ITR issues and payment allocation errors).
More consistent messaging in correspondence to reduce “follow-up calls to interpret letters”.

Fewer “status-chasing” calls when case status visibility improves.
Faster resolution for account amendments, payment reallocations, and remission requests where evidence is complete.

How is the ATO upgrading digital services (OSFA and related programs)?

The ATO’s digital direction has been to shift more interactions to OSFA and connected digital services, while strengthening reliability, identity controls, and self-service capability. For practitioners, the operational test is simple: fewer steps, fewer errors, fewer dead ends.

Streamlined client access and authority management.
Clearer error messages and validation to reduce rejected lodgments.
Better visibility of client obligations, accounts, and correspondence status.
Reduced duplication across ATO systems and forms.

Public rulings and determinations (e.g., Income Tax Rulings, GST rulings) that explain the Commissioner’s view.
Practical compliance guidance and web guidance where the most common errors occur.
Targeted risk communications in recurring hotspots (for example, trust distributions, Division 7A, PSI/alienation, GST classification).

The relevant primary law (e.g., Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; Taxation Administration Act 1953).
ATO rulings and determinations on the topic (published on ato.gov.au).
PS LA practice statements where administration and discretion are involved (also on ato.gov.au).

Which practitioner pain points are most affected (and which remain unresolved)?

The ATO’s “listening” focus most strongly affects pain points where the ATO controls the workflow end-to-end (service design, portals, correspondence, case management). Pain points tied to broader ecosystems (identity settings, cyber constraints, cross-agency data, banking and STP data quality) can be slower to resolve.

Reduced repeat contact drivers via clearer correspondence and better OSFA status visibility.
Incremental OSFA enhancements that reduce clicks and prevent rejections.
Better published guidance on frequently misunderstood topics, reducing amendment cycles.

Complex authority/identity scenarios (estates, trustees, lost records, vulnerable clients).
Dispute and objection timelines where evidence gathering is slow.
Cases involving multiple systems (income tax, GST, super, debt) with sequencing dependencies.

What does “listening” mean in real life? Practice scenarios

It should be noted that ATO improvements are most valuable when practices align their internal processes to take advantage of them (better evidence packs, better record-keeping, clearer escalation triggers).

Scenario 1: BAS agent dealing with GST coding disputes

A BAS agent sees repeated ATO follow-up on GST classification for mixed supplies. The ATO’s guidance updates and clearer examples reduce errors over time, but only if the firm standardises coding rules and documentation.

Documented GST positions aligned with ATO guidance.
Transaction-level evidence captured at source.
Internal review of exception items before lodgment.

Scenario 2: Authority delays for new directors and new entities

A practice onboarding a new company with recent director changes hits authority friction (linking and permissions). “Listening” improvements may reduce steps, but the practice still needs a robust onboarding checklist.

Early collection of IDs, ABNs, TFNs, and proof of authority.
Defined responsibility matrix: who can authorise, who can link, who can lodge.
Proactive lead times in peak periods.

Scenario 3: Debt account allocation errors and remission requests

A client payment is misallocated and triggers automated reminders. Better case routing and improved OSFA visibility reduce time lost, but practices still need a tight evidence pack.

Payment receipt references, bank proof, and allocation instructions.
A concise chronology for ATO case officers.
Clear request framing referencing discretion pathways (where relevant) under the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

How should practices respond to the ATO’s “listening” initiative?

Practices should respond by operationalising feedback and designing “ATO-ready” workflows that reduce avoidable contacts. This is the practical difference between merely observing ATO changes and capturing measurable time savings.

Maintain a live “ATO friction register”: Track recurring issues (by type, client segment, and ATO channel) and escalate patterns through professional bodies or ATO consultation channels.
Standardise evidence packs: For common case types (amendments, remissions, payment reallocations), create templates so requests are complete at first submission.
Shift to prevention: Use checklists that align with ATO validation logic (common rejection reasons, missing fields, inconsistent labels).
Train for consistency: Ensure staff understand the firm’s positions on common ATO hotspots (GST classification, trust distributions, Division 7A, PSI) and where ATO guidance sits.

How does automation reduce ATO-related pain points inside the practice?

Automation reduces ATO pain points by cutting rework, improving audit trails, and accelerating reconciliations—so that lodgments are supported by consistent data and working papers. This is increasingly important as the ATO’s justified-trust and data-matching posture expands, requiring stronger substantiation and faster response.

Manual bank reconciliation and recoding.
Manual working paper preparation (BAS reconciliation, Division 7A schedules, depreciation).
Repeated client follow-ups for missing data.

Where MyLedger (Fedix) fits in: reducing friction before you deal with the ATO

AI accounting software in Australia is most valuable when it prevents problems that later become ATO correspondence. MyLedger (by Fedix) is designed specifically for Australian accounting practices to automate the work that typically sits upstream of ATO interactions.

Automated bank reconciliation: MyLedger AutoRecon delivers 90% faster reconciliation (typically 10–15 minutes per client versus 3–4 hours in manual or semi-manual workflows), reducing BAS and year-end pressure.
AI-powered reconciliation and coding consistency: 90% auto-categorisation reduces GST and label miscoding that can lead to amendments.
Automated working papers: Built-in BAS reconciliation software outputs and working paper automation reduce the need for manual Excel packs when the ATO queries a position.
ATO integration accounting software capability: Direct ATO portal integration (via ATO access pathways) supports faster retrieval of obligations, statements and transaction data—reducing time spent switching systems.
Division 7A automation: Automated Division 7A calculations and MYR schedules align with ATO benchmark-rate expectations and reduce rework during year-end compliance.

Important note: Software does not replace professional judgment. It does, however, materially improve the quality and consistency of the underlying records that support that judgment.

What ROI can firms expect when reducing ATO-driven rework?

The measurable ROI usually comes from reclaiming senior time and compressing peak-period workloads. Where reconciliation and working papers are automated, firms can reallocate time from processing to review, advisory, and dispute prevention.

If a 50-client portfolio saves approximately 125 hours per month through automation-driven workflow compression, that time can be redeployed to proactive ATO risk reviews, client education, and higher-value services.
At a notional $150/hour charge-out rate, the time value is approximately $18,750/month, which materially outweighs typical software subscription costs.

(These figures are general in nature and depend on client complexity, data quality, and the firm’s baseline process maturity.)

Next Steps: How Fedix can help your practice reduce ATO friction

Fedix helps Australian accounting practices reduce ATO-related pain by automating the upstream work that causes downstream compliance issues. If your firm is spending peak-season time on manual reconciliation, manual BAS checks, and rebuilding working papers for ATO queries, MyLedger can materially reduce that load with AI-powered reconciliation, automated working papers, and ATO integration.

Review your last 20 ATO interactions (calls, portal cases, follow-ups) and identify which were caused by missing support, coding errors, or slow reconciliation.
Map those causes to process fixes (checklists, evidence packs, automation).
Explore MyLedger by Fedix (home.fedix.ai) to assess how automated bank reconciliation and working papers automation can reduce rework and improve ATO readiness.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the ATO’s “listening” initiative in practical terms?

It is a structured approach to gathering practitioner feedback and using it to prioritise improvements to ATO service delivery, digital channels (including Online services for agents), and published guidance. For practices, it should translate into fewer avoidable contacts, clearer processes, and reduced rework over time.

Q: Where can practitioners verify ATO updates and official guidance?

ATO updates, consultation outcomes, rulings, determinations, and practice statements are published on ato.gov.au. For technical positions, the relevant legislation (e.g., Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; Taxation Administration Act 1953) should be consulted alongside ATO public rulings and determinations.

Q: Does the ATO “listening” initiative reduce compliance risk?

It can reduce process-driven risk (errors, missed steps, misunderstood requirements) by clarifying guidance and improving digital design. Substantive tax risk still depends on correct application of the law to facts, supported by evidence and appropriate working papers.

Q: How can a practice reduce ATO follow-ups during BAS and year-end?

The most reliable methods are prevention controls: standardised GST coding rules, reconciliation completion before lodgment, consistent working papers, and complete evidence packs for adjustments. Automation can materially reduce human error and accelerate close processes.

Reconciliation speed: MyLedger = 10–15 minutes per client, Xero = commonly 3–4 hours when data is messy or needs recoding and review
Automation level: MyLedger = AI-powered reconciliation with ~90% auto-categorisation, Xero = more manual review and rule-based automation
ATO integration: MyLedger = direct ATO portal integration focus, Xero = limited ATO portal-style interaction (often requiring separate processes)
Working papers: MyLedger = automated working papers (BAS, Division 7A, depreciation), Xero = often manual Excel working papers outside the ledger

Disclaimer

This article is general information only and is not legal or tax advice. Tax laws and ATO guidance are complex and subject to change. Advice should be obtained from a suitably qualified tax professional having regard to the specific facts and relevant legislation, rulings, and ATO guidance.