09/12/2025 • 17 min read
Taxpayers’ Charter Review 2025: Modernise Now
Taxpayers’ Charter Review 2025: Modernise Now
A timely review of the ATO Taxpayers’ Charter is a genuine opportunity to modernise Australia’s tax administration because it can convert broad “service commitments” into measurable, enforceable standards that reflect how tax is actually administered in 2025—digitally, in real time, and through intermediaries such as registered tax agents. From an Australian accounting practice perspective, the Charter should be updated to hardwire clearer timeframes, stronger procedural fairness commitments, practical guidance for ATO digital systems, and transparent remedies when service standards are not met—reducing disputes, rework, and avoidable interest and penalty outcomes for clients.
What is the Taxpayers’ Charter and why does it matter in 2025?
The Taxpayers’ Charter is the ATO’s public statement of what taxpayers can expect when dealing with the ATO and what the ATO expects from taxpayers. It matters in 2025 because the practical “tax experience” now occurs inside online services, pre-fill systems, data-matching, automated firings of reviews, and ATO portals—where service failures can cause real financial harm even if the law is ultimately applied correctly.
- escalations are required due to delays, unclear information requests, or inconsistent treatment
- clients experience cashflow damage from delayed refunds or prolonged verification processes
- disputes arise about procedural fairness, information-gathering, or timeliness of ATO actions
ATO source reference: The Charter and supporting ATO service commitments are published by the ATO (search ATO website: “Taxpayers’ Charter” and “Your rights and obligations”).
Why is a timely review of the Taxpayers’ Charter a chance to modernise?
It is established that administrative “rights statements” only improve outcomes when they are operationalised—translated into timeframes, accountability, and accessible remedies. A timely review is a chance to modernise because the ATO’s operating model is now heavily digital, risk-based, and automated, and the Charter must reflect that reality.
A modernised Charter should address four modern pressures:
- Digital decision-making and opacity
- Timeliness and cashflow harm
- Intermediary reality (tax agents)
- Consistency and procedural fairness
How does the Taxpayers’ Charter interact with tax law and ATO powers?
The Charter does not override legislation, but it should shape how discretions and administrative powers are exercised and explained. In practice, modernising the Charter is about improving how the ATO administers and communicates decisions made under legislation.
- Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 1953): Administration, information-gathering, penalties, interest, and procedural machinery.
- Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 1997): Substantive income tax rules.
- Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936): Legacy provisions still central to practice (including anti-avoidance and integrity rules).
- ATO rulings and practice statements: While not primary law, they are highly relevant to consistent administration. In many disputes, the practical question is whether the ATO followed its own published approach.
Practice point: When a client feels “treated unfairly,” the issue is often not the tax law—it is delay, unclear evidence requirements, inconsistent application of guidance, or inadequate reasons. A refreshed Charter should explicitly commit to minimum standards around reasons, timeframes, and fair opportunity to respond.
What should be modernised in the Charter (from an accounting practice perspective)?
A modernised Charter should include measurable standards and clearer commitments that align with day-to-day practice. The most valuable updates would address timeliness, transparency, and remedy pathways.
What “timeliness” standards should be included?
The Charter should include explicit standards because “we aim to respond promptly” is not operationally meaningful.
- Response time targets for written correspondence: Clear timeframes for acknowledging, triaging, and substantively responding.
- Case time-to-resolution ranges: Published ranges by matter type (for example, verification of refunds, BAS reviews, audits, objections).
- Escalation triggers: If no action occurs within set timeframes, the matter escalates automatically to a team leader or case escalation unit.
- Delay consequence management: Where ATO delays materially contribute to cost, there should be clearer pathways to:
ATO reference point: The ATO publishes guidance on interest and penalty remission in various forms, including on its website and through practice statements; a modernised Charter should make these pathways easier to access and more consistent to apply.
What “transparency” standards should be included?
Transparency should be strengthened because modern compliance actions are often algorithmic and evidence-driven.
- Plain-English “why we contacted you” explanations: Including what data mismatch or risk indicator is relevant (without compromising integrity models).
- Minimum evidence lists by issue type: So agents and clients can resolve issues without multiple iterative requests.
- Reasons for decision standards: Clear reasons, evidence relied upon, and the precise legislative basis for adjustments.
What “procedural fairness” standards should be included?
Procedural fairness is a recurring friction point in audits and reviews. Modernisation should make fairness observable and consistent.
- Reasonable time to respond: Particularly where third-party evidence is required.
- Genuine engagement with agent submissions: Including acknowledgement of material arguments and evidence.
- Consistency checks: If ATO positions shift, the Charter should require explanation (especially where prior ATO advice or published guidance was followed).
What “digital service” standards should be included?
Digital service is now the frontline of administration. The Charter should state expectations for system availability, portal messaging, and error resolution.
- Digital correspondence reliability: Clear rules for what constitutes “served” and what happens when systems fail.
- System outage contingency: Extensions or safe-harbour approaches when outages prevent lodgment or response.
- Better agent-facing workflows: More consistent integration of correspondence, attachments, and status tracking in Online services for agents.
Is the Taxpayers’ Charter currently strong enough for modern compliance activity?
No—while the existing Charter articulates sound principles, it is generally not specific enough to drive consistent outcomes across high-volume, digitally-triggered interactions. In 2025 practice, the recurring pain points are not a lack of stated values, but a lack of operational commitments and transparent remedy pathways.
- protracted “verification” periods with limited status visibility
- repeated requests for similar information in slightly different formats
- inconsistent interpretations between teams or regions
- delayed objection progress without clear milestones
- client cost escalation due to time delays rather than technical complexity
What are real-world scenarios where a modernised Charter would reduce risk?
A modernised Charter would reduce risk by creating predictable, enforceable service expectations and clearer escalation and remission pathways.
Scenario 1: BAS refund verification delays (cashflow stress)
Direct answer: A stronger Charter could require clear timeframes and explain what evidence will finalise verification.
- A BAS refund is held for verification.
- The client’s cashflow is materially impacted.
- Multiple rounds of requests occur with little clarity on the end-point.
- a published evidence checklist for common refund integrity checks
- a maximum timeframe before escalation
- transparent status tracking and a named case owner
- explicit guidance on seeking priority processing where hardship is demonstrated
Scenario 2: Audit information requests that “creep” over time
Direct answer: A stronger Charter could set minimum standards for issue scoping and evidence requests.
- The initial audit scope is narrow.
- Additional issues emerge, increasing time and cost.
- The client perceives a “moving target.”
- commitment to clear scoping documents
- explanation when scope expands, including the reason and legislative basis
- clearer “what would satisfy the ATO” guidance to avoid iterative requests
Scenario 3: Objections and review delays increasing interest exposure
Direct answer: A stronger Charter could require milestone-based case management and clearer remission guidance.
- The objection process takes months longer than anticipated.
- GIC accrues, and clients feel penalised by time rather than correctness.
- Agents need a clearer pathway to manage delay-driven cost.
- milestone commitments (acknowledge, evidence review, decision draft, finalisation)
- clearer links to interest remission considerations where delay is attributable to administration rather than taxpayer conduct
How should accounting practices respond to the Charter review process?
Accounting practices should respond with evidence-based submissions focused on operational standards, because measurable service commitments deliver the greatest client benefit. General statements about “better service” rarely change case outcomes; specific targets and remedy mechanisms do.
- Document your recurring friction points
- Quantify the cost of delay
- Propose measurable standards
- Request remedy clarity
- Emphasise agent workflow reality
How does this modernisation theme connect to practice automation and “AI accounting software Australia”?
A modernised Charter aligns with practice automation because it pushes the system toward clarity, standardisation, and measurable workflow milestones—exactly what accounting automation depends on. Where ATO interactions are opaque or inconsistent, automation gains are reduced because staff are forced into manual chasing and rework.
- automated bank reconciliation
- BAS reconciliation software
- ATO integration accounting software
- workflow-based working papers and evidence packs
- MyLedger’s automation reduces time spent preparing reconciliations and working papers, which means agents can respond to ATO activity faster and with better evidence quality.
- In practice terms, faster close and cleaner workpapers reduce the likelihood that ATO reviews escalate due to missing or inconsistent information.
- MyLedger automated bank reconciliation: 10–15 minutes per client (around 90% faster) with AI-powered reconciliation and bulk categorisation.
- Traditional workflows (including manual or semi-manual tools): commonly 3–4 hours per client when reconciliations, evidence collation, and working paper assembly are handled across spreadsheets, emails, and portals.
This operational uplift matters because many Charter pain points worsen when practices cannot respond quickly with high-quality, consistent evidence.
What should “good” look like after a modernised Charter?
A successful modernisation would be evident in day-to-day practice outcomes, not just rewritten wording.
- fewer iterative information request cycles (because evidence needs are clearer upfront)
- faster resolution of verification and review actions
- more consistent, better-reasoned decisions with clearer legislative references
- reduced time spent on follow-ups and status chasing
- improved trust outcomes and fewer disputes escalating unnecessarily
Next Steps: How Fedix can help practices operationalise modernisation
If the Charter is modernised, practices that can respond quickly with structured evidence will benefit most. Fedix helps Australian firms do this by reducing time spent on transaction processing and working paper preparation, allowing more time for review, advisory, and managing ATO interactions.
- Map your current “ATO friction points” (refund holds, audits, objections) and measure time lost to rework.
- Standardise your evidence packs and working paper outputs for recurring issues (GST, PAYG, Division 7A, year-end adjustments).
- Review automation options that reduce manual steps.
Learn more about how MyLedger by Fedix can support AI-powered reconciliation, automated working papers, and ATO-aligned workflows for Australian accounting practices at home.fedix.ai.
Conclusion: Modernising the Charter should be about measurable service standards
A timely review of the Taxpayers’ Charter is a chance to modernise Australian tax administration by turning principles into practical commitments: clear timeframes, transparent reasons, consistent procedural fairness, and reliable digital service standards. For Australian accounting practices, the benefits are concrete—reduced rework, faster dispute resolution, improved client cashflow outcomes, and fewer avoidable penalties and interest driven by administrative delay.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Tax laws and ATO administrative approaches can change. Advice should be obtained from a qualified Australian tax professional for specific circumstances.