George approached us after receiving conflicting advice from the ATO about how he could be added as an authorised contact for his 12‑year‑old daughter. Although he provided documents confirming his parental status — including a birth certificate and Family Court orders — the ATO advised that a doctor’s statement was needed before it could recognise him as an authorised contact.

When he asked the ATO to accept the documents already supplied, he was then told that a signed acknowledgement from the child’s mother was required — something never mentioned in earlier interactions, and inconsistent with the advice he had repeatedly been given: that the relevant completed form, certified ID, and existing court orders confirming equal shared parental responsibility, were sufficient.

George declined to provide the mother’s statement, explaining that the requirement was new, unexpected, and inconsistent with prior information.

We contacted the ATO to seek the preferred outcome — that the documents already provided be accepted. Instead, the ATO outlined concerns around access to a child’s protected information and suggested potential risks in cases involving family violence.

To progress the matter, we arranged a meeting with the ATO. During the meeting, the ATO clarified:

• A parent does not have automatic entitlement to their child’s ATO‑held protected information.
• Under its internal policy, the ATO considers individuals “capable” at 14 years of age, at which point they are presumed able to manage their own tax affairs.
• Parental authorisations therefore end at age 14.

We discussed the inconsistencies in the advice provided to George, the adequacy of the documents already supplied, and the importance of clear, consistent communication.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the ATO agreed to:

• Add George as an authorised contact on his daughter’s account until she reaches 14 years of age.
• Provide him with a clear explanation of the “capable age” policy.

Review its internal scripting to ensure staff are guided to accurate and consistent information in future.

Bob accidentally paid his tax bill twice. By the time he realised the error, his credit card had been cancelled. When he contacted the ATO to request a refund, he was advised that it could only be processed back onto the original card — which was no longer active. The ATO cited a contractual restriction with the Reserve Bank of Australia as the reason for refusing alternative refund methods, such as bank transfer or cheque.

We asked the ATO to consider a practical resolution, recommending that the refund be issued either to Bob’s nominated bank account or via cheque. Initially, the ATO declined to accept these recommendations. Given that we had received multiple complaints about similar issues, we escalated the matter and sought further clarification on how the ATO intended to resolve it.

We challenged the ATO’s position, highlighting the Commissioner’s legislative obligation to refund RBA credits and questioning whether contractual terms could override statutory requirements. In response, the ATO acknowledged that legislation takes precedence but maintained that the Commissioner retained discretion over the refund method.

Following our inquiries, the ATO implemented a new process that now allows refunds to be issued even when the original credit card has been cancelled. We independently verified that this process was successfully applied in Bob’s case, and the refund was issued accordingly. This outcome not only resolved Bob’s matter but also led to a broader systems change to benefit other taxpayers facing similar circumstances.