ATO child support data-matching program
The ATO has advised that it will acquire child support data from Services Australia for the 2025 to 2027 income years, including the following:
- client identification details (names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth) and
- child support details (child support identification reference number, child support role type, and child support category).
The ATO estimates that records relating to up to 300,000 individuals will be obtained each financial year, which will be matched against ATO records.
The objectives of this program are to (among other things):
- allow Services Australia to more accurately assess child support obligations, and maximise opportunities to collect child support debts, and
- identify and educate individuals who may be failing to meet their lodgment obligations and help them to finalise their lodgment obligations, or notify the ATO that an income tax return is not required.
Tax dodgers banned from leaving the country
The ATO is actively using departure prohibition orders (‘DPOs’) as part of a broader shift towards strengthening payment performance and debt collection. A DPO is an enforcement action available to the ATO to prevent certain persons with tax liabilities from leaving Australia without paying their outstanding tax.
Since July 2025, the ATO has issued 21 DPOs, more than the total number issued in the entire financial year ended 30 June 2025.
The ATO notes that a taxpayer was recently prevented from boarding a flight in the early hours of the morning due to a DPO imposed because of deliberate non-payment of a significant debt.
Taxpayer’s dog breeding activities held to be an enterprise
The Administrative Review Tribunal (‘ART’) recently held that a taxpayer had carried on an enterprise of dog breeding for GST purposes.
He had lodged activity statements for the quarters ended 30 September 2018 to 31 December 2021 inclusive, claiming input tax credits (‘ITCs’) for the dog breeding activities he carried on from his home (among other activities).
The ATO disallowed the taxpayer’s claims for the above periods, arguing that enterprises were not carried on, and that there was a lack of appropriate substantiation (among other reasons).
The ART however held that the taxpayer’s dog breeding operation was an enterprise for GST purposes, noting that his activities had “the necessary commercial character.” Therefore, the taxpayer was entitled to ITCs for that enterprise.
However, the ART affirmed the ATO’s decision to reduce the taxpayer’s other ITC claims, such as in relation to stamp duty on the acquisition of a property and for café and grocery expenses.
The ART also admonished the taxpayer for apparently using artificial intelligence in the presentation of his case, as he appeared to rely on cases and principles that did not exist.
If you’re unsure how these changes apply to you, speak with your Omnis Business Advisor now to review your lodgement, payment and record-keeping obligations.
