ATO Auditor Relents, Grants One-Week Extension to Deadline During Six-Week Leave

23 September 2026

MELBOURNE — John, an ATO audit officer, has granted a taxpayer one additional week to respond to a position paper, extending the deadline to 21 August. The taxpayer had requested four weeks. John commenced six weeks’ leave three days later.

The extended deadline fell in the first week of his leave. John’s supervisor and the other officer assigned to the audit were also on leave. No person assigned to the matter was available to consider the response when it became due.

The audit commenced in January 2024. The taxpayer was given 28 days to provide the first set of information and records. The matter was allocated to John six months later, during which time no substantive audit work had been performed.

Once allocated, the audit proceeded in the usual manner. John would issue a request for information, generally allowing two weeks. The taxpayer would respond. John would consider the response for between six and 12 months before issuing a further request, generally allowing two weeks.

The taxpayer had previously obtained modest extensions of one or two days. John had approved them reluctantly and noted in each case that the audit had already been running for a substantial period. No precedent was intended.

The current request was for four weeks, the first request of that length. It explained that the taxpayer’s mother had been admitted to hospital the previous week following a stroke and remained in the stroke unit. It explained that the taxpayer had himself been unwell since April and was awaiting a specialist appointment. It also explained that a substantial portion of the business records had been damaged in a 2022 fire. The insurer’s assessment was attached.

The request also addressed the bank statements. The ATO has requested bank statements covering 20 years. The taxpayer’s bank makes four years of statements available online. Statements older than that must be ordered through a branch, are produced in batches, and attract a fee per statement.

The taxpayer has been requesting them in batches since February. As each batch arrives, he scans it on a flatbed scanner, one page at a time, because the statements arrive stapled and hole-punched. He has completed 11 years.

John said the difficulty could have been avoided. A prudent business, he said, would have retained complete financial records. The taxpayer’s inability to produce them promptly indicated an absence of proper systems. This was itself relevant to penalties.

The statutory obligation is to retain records for five years.

The audit reaches back 20 years because the Commissioner has formed the opinion that there may have been fraud or evasion, removing the usual time limit. John says the records are required to determine whether income has been omitted. If income has been omitted, there may have been fraud or evasion.

The taxpayer has explained the income and expenses in detail. John says this cannot be confirmed without the records. The absence of records means it cannot be confirmed that no income was omitted. John says this is relevant to whether there may have been fraud or evasion.

The possibility of fraud or evasion permits John to require the records. The records are therefore required to determine whether their absence supports the view that they are required. That view is expected to be explained in the audit finalisation letter.

The taxpayer’s previous submissions were lodged in February. John responded on 31 July. The response allowed two weeks.

ATO guidance provides that officers should deal with extension requests reasonably and having regard to the taxpayer’s circumstances. John considered this request carefully for nine days. The extension granted was seven days.

He sent the email at 4:51pm on Friday, 14 August. It was his last day in the office. John’s automatic reply advised that he was on leave with limited access to email and would respond on his return. Urgent matters, it said, should be directed to a case management mailbox.

The submissions were lodged on 21 August. They ran to 90 pages and annexed the 11 years of statements scanned to date. They were opened on 28 September.

Interest accrued throughout. John did not consider the period during which the audit was unallocated, or the period during which the submissions remained unread, to be grounds for remitting general interest charge. He checked the taxpayer’s star sign. The taxpayer was a Gemini.

Under the ATO’s new GIC remission framework, Geminis are referred to the compliance team. John did not think this assisted.

On 29 September, John wrote requesting the remaining nine years. He allowed 14 days.

The Daily Cartland is a work of satire. Requests for an extension of time to find it funny will be considered on their merits, having regard to all the circumstances, and refused. The author is on leave.