In one of the earlier posts here I pointed out how the ATO has been anything but helpful, and how their idiotic, myopic, insane rulings have scared away investors into Australian films covered by tax schemes. Some years go I was at a lobbying function to meet the then Federal minister for Small Businesses, Joe Hockey to explain just how these rulings were impacting the film industry, all of which were small businesses, with a disproportionate number of them (300+ ) holding offices in his electorate of North Sydney.
At the time, Mr. Hockey claimed that sometimes a government would legislate particular schemes and incentives but the ATO as a bureaucracy would adjudicate it entirely against the spirit of the legislation, much to the Federal Government's chagrin. At the time I reported this remark, I got a lot of people telling me that this couldn't be true - that a government Executive was responsible for everything done in its name and had to cop the blame. Sadly, our institutions are a lot more complicated and difficult than what is on paper because people interpret the letter of the law which ever way suits them best, including institutions.
With that in mind, I want to present to you more evidence the Australian Taxation Office is hostile to the Australian Film Industry. Pleaides sent in this link this morning.
THE Australian Tax Office has denied a key alteration to the new producer offset for the film and television industry, prompting a withering response from the Screen Producers Association of Australia and causing the government agency Screen Australia to work as an industry advocate.
The ATO has advised the association it will not make any changes to the timing of the acquital requirements of the producer offset, meaning film and TV productions must bear interest costs on productions until the year following the completion of the film or program.
On a modestly budgeted (say $8 million) Australian film that completes production before Christmas, this additional interest could cost more than $250,000 while waiting for the offset to be paid.
"The ATO has argued it requires political intervention and legislative amendments to the Tax Act. They should have told us this eight months ago, when this review was called," association executive director Geoff Brown said. The introduction of a quarterly acquittal process, as in business activity statements, was seen as a logical and necessary amendment to legislation rushed through Parliament this year.
If quarterly acquittals, or reconciliations, are not allowed, the industry will be strained as producers try to finish productions before June 30 each year, resulting in unsustainable bottlenecks and possibly inflationary pressure on all facets of the industry.
The association is expected to lobby the federal Government to remove the ATO from the process and establish a rebate system beyond the tax system, as in New Zealand.
One producer said this was particularly pressing, given the tax office's colourful history of harsh judgements and retrospective legislation against the film industry.
Mr Brown went further: "I doubt any policy support for the industry from government can be effective while responsibility for financial acquittal remains with the ATO."
In this regard, new Screen Australia chief executive Dr Ruth Harley will be helpful. Her last role was chief executive of the New Zealand Film Commission.
"It's always a long process and it's hard to achieve these kinds of amendments, but if it's bipartisan and if it's done through the tax omnibus legislation, at least the mechanism is clear and relatively simple," she said.
Screen Australia's involvement in calling for an amendment is of heightened interest, as the deputy chair of Dr Harley's board, Ian Robertson, last week said Screen Australia had no interest or duty to lobby government on behalf of the industry, on this or other matters. Dr Harley was quick to clarify that position in her first week in the job.
"There's a clear distinction between lobbying and working together with the department on information. I know it sounds like weasel words, but I've had this experience, and agencies like us have to be careful to make that distinction and to work with the right tone.
"SPAA, of course, is free to take much more of a lobbying stance than we are, but we are free to be a competent adviser," she said. "We do have a lot in common with SPAA on this issue."
Changes to the acquittal requirements of the producer offset are of pressing concern, but Screen Australia's hands-on involvement in the issue is just as consequential given Mr Robertson's inflammatory comments at last week's SPAA Conference (Media, November 17).
Already Dr Harley has confirmed there will be further consideration of Screen Australia's draft guidelines particularly on short film development and wording of the guidelines.
I highlighted the bits to illustrate the point that my opinion of the ATO's role in destroying my indusry is not something I've pulled out of my rear end. If this sort of thing was taking place with say, Mining or Wool, it would be on the front page news every day until it got resolved. Alas the Australian Film Industry is so small, it keeps getting sold down the river by the governments of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment