Satisfaction with Inland Revenue - October 2018 - Chartered Accountants
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Satisfaction with Inland Revenue
October 2018
Conducted for Chartered Accountants ANZ & TMNZ by Colmar Brunton
Colmar Brunton 2018 1Background
MEMBER
SATISFACTION OVERALL OBJECTIVE SURVEY QUESTIONS
Every year since 2010 The overall objective of the The 2018 survey repeats
Colmar Brunton has been research is to understand most of the questions from
commissioned by members’ experiences earlier measures and also
Chartered Accountants with IR and identify areas includes sections on IR’s
ANZ and Tax for improvement. A business transformation
Management NZ to secondary objective is to (the changes that have
assess member understand members been rolled over the last
satisfaction with Inland attitudes and preferences six months as well as those
Revenue (IR). on topical issues at the planned for the next
time. phase) and AIM.
Colmar Brunton 2018 2Method
9,644 New Zealand members of Chartered Accountants ANZ who hold either a CA or
344 ACA designation were invited to complete an online survey. Members were screened
Interviews to exclude those who had no tax responsibilities. By the close off date, 344 members
had qualified and completed the survey.
25 Sep – 3 Oct The survey was open for members to complete between the 26th of September and
2018 the 9th of October, 2018. Members were sent two reminders during fieldwork.
±5.2% The maximum margin of error (at the 95% confidence interval) on the overall sample
Margin of error size of 344 is: ±5.2%.
Results from the recent surveys presented here are based on both CAs and ACAs.
CAs / ACAs Results from 2012 are based only on CAs.
Colmar Brunton 2018 3Summary
Colmar Brunton 2018 4Experiences
Seventy-two percent of members are satisfied with their experiences with
Inland Revenue, this is six percentage points lower than last year.
The decline in overall satisfaction seems to be due to a drop in Inland Revenue’s
responsiveness. The areas that have had the largest declines are all speed
related:
• Phone – time taken to answer your enquiry
• Audit – time given to respond
• Audit – time taken to respond
• Processing – speed of processing.
Colmar Brunton 2018 5Experiences
When looking at the different types of interaction with Inland Revenue,
satisfaction with phoning IR has dropped eleven percentage points and is
clearly the type of contact with the lowest satisfaction.
Improving the phone experience is the priority for members as it is important to
them and satisfaction is low. All three aspects of the phone experience fall into
the top priority for improvement area.
The other element of the experience that is a top priority to improve is the
speed of response to information provided to IR as part of an audit.
Colmar Brunton 2018 6Business transformation
Almost all members are aware of IR’s Business Transformation.
More than half of corporate and public sector members say they are ready for it.
Only a quarter of Public Practice members say they are ready for it however.
As a result of their increased readiness, corporate and public sector members
are less likely than they were to say they need more information (dropped from
60% last year to 38%). Public Practice members, in contrast, are just as likely as
last year to say that they need more information (42% last year and 45% this
year).
Just over half of all members are satisfied with how Inland Revenue’s FBT, RWT,
AIM, AEOI and payroll filing system is operating now. Satisfaction is lower
amongst Public Practice members with only around four out of every ten
satisfied.
Colmar Brunton 2018 7AIM and direct contact
There are decreasing levels of confidence that AIM will reduce compliance costs
and increase of tax payments.
Two thirds of Public Practice members say Inland Revenue has directly
contacted their clients. Members were generally unhappy about the contact
because it caused confusion/anxiety and often made more work for the
member.
“It caused confusion by the client, they didn't understand why IRD approached them directly
when they have a tax agent. They expect us to deal with their tax matters. Some of the issues
arose through IRD stuff ups, which we would have just sorted behind the scenes as usual, but
they caused anxiety for our clients when IRD contacted them directly.”
Colmar Brunton 2018 8Overview of experiences
Colmar Brunton 2018 9There has been a decline in overall satisfaction with Inland Revenue of six percentage points.
6% 6% 3% 4% 7% 4% 7%
21% 16% 18%
19% 15%
26% 21%
72%
2018 average
(good, very good,
44% 39% 43%
44% 40%
excellent)
46%
40%
32%
32% 31% 28%
25% 29%
26%
4% 2% 3% 5% 7% 4% 5%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q32. . . . Overall how would you rate your experience with Inland Revenue?
Base 2018: All members n=344. Colmar Brunton 2018 10The decline in overall satisfaction has been larger for Public Practice members.
Public Practice members Corporate, public sector, and not-for-profit members
5% 7% 2% 7%
17%
19% 16%
25% 72%
2018 average
(good, very good,
43% 38% excellent)
43%
40%
33% 33%
29% 24%
3% 3% 4% 7%
2017 2018 2017 2018
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q32. . . . Overall how would you rate your experience with Inland Revenue?
Base 8 All Public Practice members n=193, all corporate and other members n=151. Colmar Brunton 2018 11Looking at the individual types of interaction, there has been a large decline in satisfaction with phoning
Inland Revenue
Percentage rating excellent, very good or good
Contact for general info** Contact for processing Tax audits Phoning IR
100%
87% 88% 87% 87% 88%
85%
82%
85% 77%
80% 74% 75% 77% 76%
72% 79% 73%
73% 74% 74%
72% 68% 68% 72% 72%
66% 69%
60% 58%
61%
40%
20%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs. **The 2018 figure is a weighted average of the rating of each individual type of information, prior to 2018 it was a single overall question.
Source: Q5/12/23/32. And overall, how would you rate your experience in . . .? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2018: All respondents n=344, who phoned IR n=202, who contacted IR for general information n=288, who contacted IR for processing n=260,
who contacted IR about a tax audit and whose most recent audit has been completed, n=37. Colmar Brunton 2018 12Ratings of most of the individual components of each type of interaction have declined. Those related to
speed of response have declined the most.
Percentage rating excellent, very good or good
All attributes this side of the line
have decreased since last year
All attributes this side of the line
have increased since last year
-10 +10
percentage percentage
points points
-8 -5 -3
Phone – finding right person
Processing – straightforward process
Phone – time taken to answer your
enquiry Processing – consistency and accuracy
Audit timing – time given to respond
Phone – consistency from
different people at IR
Audit timing – time taken to respond
Processing – speed of processing
Phoning IR Tax audits Processing
Note. Only those attributes that have moved at least three percentage points are shown.
Base 2018: All CAs n=344, who phoned IR n=202, who contacted IR for processing n=260, who contacted IR about a tax audit n=74.
Colmar Brunton 2018 13Priorities for improvement
Colmar Brunton 2018 14The primary priority for Inland Revenue to improve is the phone experience – all three elements of the phone experience
fall in the ‘top priorities’ area. The time taken to respond to information provided to them in an audit is also a top priority
to improve.
Top priorities for IR to focus on – things that are very
important to members that IR is not doing as well on
Importance of attributes to overall rating of IR
Processing – straightforward process
Audit timing – time taken by
IR to respond Phone – finding Processing – consistency
right person and accuracy of processing
Phone – time taken to
Audit – overall
answer your enquiry Info – other publications
Phone – and brochures
consistency of info
Processing – error free
Audit timing – time
given to respond Processing – speed
of processing Info – tax alerts
Secondary priorities – things that are either slightly
less important or IR are performing slightly better on
Info – public rulings
Info – information on their website
Info – tax information bulletins
Phoning IR Tax audits General information Processing
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Performance (excellent, very good, or good)
Base 2018: All CAs n=344, who phoned IR n=282, who contacted IR for general information n=277, who contacted IR for processing n=260, who contacted
IR about a tax audit and whose most recent audit is complete n=37.
Colmar Brunton 2018 15Phoning IR
Colmar Brunton 2018 16There has been an eleven percentage point decline in satisfaction with phoning Inland Revenue.
6% 9% 6%
12% 14% 11%
16%
26% 19% 21%
23% 20%
26% 26%
58%
38% 37% 2018 average
38% 39% (good,
37%
32% 31% very good,
excellent)
28% 27%
23% 25% 25% 25% 22%
6% 4% 5% 6% 8% 5% 5%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
↑ Significantly higher/lower than 2017
↑
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q5. And overall, how would you rate your experience in telephoning Inland Revenue?
Base 2018: All members who have telephoned IR in the last 12 months n=282. Colmar Brunton 2018 17Satisfaction with all elements of phone calls to Inland Revenue have declined, but the greatest has been in
time taken to answer your enquiry.
% rating excellent,
very good, or good
2018 7% 20% 31% 23% 19% 58%
Ease of finding right person
2017 5% 23% 32% 26% 13% 61%
2018 6% 17% 26% 26% 25% 49%
Time taken to answer
your enquiry
2017 5% 18% 36% 25% 16% 59%
2018 3% 17% 24% 28% 28% 45%
Consistency of information from
different people at IR
2017 3% 16% 31% 31% 19% 50%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Source: Q4. Thinking about the occasions when you have phoned Inland Revenue in the last 12 months, how would you rate them on each of the following?
Base 2018: All members who have telephoned IR in the last 12 months (excl. don’t know) n=282.
Colmar Brunton 2018 18Time remains one of the most commonly suggested improvements, along with staff knowledge. This year
there has been an increase in people suggesting consistent answers.
69%
Answer phones quicker/improve response times
71%
73%
More experienced staff/more knowledgeable 67%
54%
Refer callers to the right person/relevant person
54%
Make more technical staff available 51%
53%
Provide direct dial numbers/dedicated lines 54%
51%
Provide a list of individuals to contact (DDI and email) 44%
48%
Provide consistent service/answers 52%
40%
Provide more staff training 47%
40%
Have more call centre staff available 42%
40%
Get rid of the answering system/have a real person 25%
33%
26%
Improve customer service/staff attitude
19%
8%
Other
8%
2018 2017
Source: Q6. Thinking about your experience, how could Inland Revenue improve your experience when contacting them by phone?
Base 2018: Respondents who phoned IR and rated their overall experiences phoning IR as good, fair or poor, n=206.
Colmar Brunton 2018 19A selection of the ‘other’ comments about improving telephone contact
“Allow email contact.
“Be able to email individuals.”
“Change answering system options and allow for email. And I can rarely understand staff messages left on voicemail.”
“Get rid of the music.”
“Do not play Sierra Leone ever again!”
Source : Q6. Thinking about your experience, how could Inland Revenue improve your experience when contacting them by phone?
Colmar Brunton 2018 20Tax audits
Colmar Brunton 2018 21Previously only members whose most recent audit had been completed were asked the overall satisfaction with the
audit question, this year it was expanded to include members whose most recent audit had been completed. Members
whose audit hadn’t been completed were much less satisfied with audits
Members whose most
Members whose most recent audit is complete
recent audit isn’t complete
9% 7% 8% 5% 7%
13% 14%
11% 22%
17% 19% 19% 76%
24% 14% 11%
2018 average
42% 22% (good, 25%
27%
33% 31% very good,
26% excellent)
49%
35%
44%
33% 30% 41%
32% 34%
21%
12% 17%
9% 5% 8% 10% 8% 9%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018
(most recent
is complete)
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q23. Thinking about the completion of this most recent audit, how would you rate the process of completing the audit and agreeing any adjustments with Inland Revenue?
Base 2018: All members who’ve had contact with IR about a tax audit in the last 12 months and it has been completed n=37, members who’ve had contact and it hasn’t been completed
n=32. Colmar Brunton 2018 22Members think the tax audits could be improved by keeping to agreed timelines using a quicker overall
process. In addition they suggest IR staff come into the audit with a more comprehensive understanding of
the business they are auditing.
“Have a policy of completing within six months of commencement.” “Recent organisation re-structure clearly has impacted audit staff in terms of quality,
availability and their morale. Difficulties when staff move off cases during the audit
“It seems that the business transformation process and strike action have meant a lot with little/no communication of the change.”
of action is not getting the attention it deserves which is distressing for clients.”
“Greater understanding of business processes.”
“Provide a electronic log/location for information to be shared/uploaded/catalogued
with progress (e.g. timeline with critical points completed or expected in the future) to “IR need to significantly expand and upskill in international tax / transfer pricing. Their
be shown and acknowledged.” counterparts worldwide do this post-BEPS and I have genuine concerns that NZ is being
left behind. Audits are delayed unnecessarily because the investigators outside of the
“Quicker feedback on information provided. In our situation, the audit closed but the small specialist team have little apparent technical or commercial knowledge and waste
IRD advised that one issue was too complicated so they were going to leave it open to time with irrelevant questions. The TP specialists appear overworked and unable to
revisit it at a later date which provides a great deal of uncertainty for the company.” invest time to fully understand our clients' businesses. Clients become increasingly
frustrated as 'fact finding' drags out and they attend meetings 18m into an audit where
“Quicker responses. Pragmatic approach would help i.e. if there is no tax shortfall then they are still having to explain their business, because the TP specialist hasn't had time
do not impose unnecessary work on the client or agent. As an example this sometimes to ask the right questions, and the non-TP investigator has had no idea what to ask.
occurs where say a deduction was allowed but was taken in a subsequent period , IRD Some TP specialists bombard our clients with 50 page letters requesting a wide range
insist on new correct returns being prepared filed etc when no additional tax is to be of information that requires a great deal of internal resource to compile.”
paid.”
“More skilled staff. My experience was that information requested was all public
“Actually do it, we got told in November 2017 that they were going to audit us, they record but could not be found by IRD staff and just because they had never seen a
took until March 2018 to ask for information, its now October 2018, they have not structure it became an issue.”
asked us one question yet. We got an email last week saying that they are having
systems problems and can’t process it any further at this time. So far 11 months and no
progress – terrible.”
Source: Q24. How could Inland Revenue improve the tax audit experience for you?
Colmar Brunton 2018 23There has been a decline in satisfaction with both the time given by IR to respond to requests and the time
taken by IR to respond.
% rating excellent,
very good, or good
2018 3% 24% 27% 29% 18% 53%
Time given by IR to respond to
information requests
2017 9% 20% 34% 22% 15% 63%
2018 3% 19% 24% 23% 32% 46%
Time taken by IR to respond to
information provided by the
audited organisation
2017 6% 17% 31% 22% 24% 54%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Source: Q18. Still thinking about Inland Revenue’s tax audit timelines, how would you rate them on the following?
Base 2018: Respondents who contacted IR about a tax audit (excl. don’t know) n=88.
Colmar Brunton 2018 24Despite the decline in satisfaction with response times, there has been an improvement in the total
length of time the most recent audit took.
2018 42% 26% 14% 14% 5%
Time taken – 2017 23% 28% 25% 23%
most recent
complete audit 2016 34% 29% 13% 19% 5%
2015 39% 25% 18% 16% 2%
2018 22% 16% 24% 20% 18%
Time taken so far 2017 18% 20% 24% 20% 18%
– most recent
incomplete audit 2016 14% 23% 29% 22% 13%
2015 16% 19% 22% 29% 14%
3 months or less 4 to 6 months 7 to 12 months More than a year Don’t recall
Source: Q16b. Thinking about the length of time it took from start to finish, approximately how long did this most recent tax audit take? Q16c. How
long has the audit been going for?
Base 2018: Members whose most recent audit has been completed n=43, respondents whose most recent audit hasn’t been completed n=45.
Colmar Brunton 2018 25Just under a third of members said that the most recent audit had an impact of the running of the business
under audit.
Yes, had an impact on the normal running of the business No impact Don't recall
2018 30% 56% 15%
2017 35% 56% 9%
Impact of audit on running
business/organisation
2016 44% 48% 8%
2015 31% 57% 11%
Source: Q21. During the audit period did Inland Revenue have any impact on the normal running of business [for your client/company/organisation]?
Base 2018: Members who were involved in a tax audit in the last 12 months, n=88. *NB: This question was also asked to Public Practitioners who HADN’T had
contact with IR in the last year about Tax Audits. Sixty percent of this group said the question wasn’t applicable to them, so the results have been rebased on
only those who’ve had contact about tax audits in the past year. Colmar Brunton 2018 26Impact of a tax audit on client business is predominantly related to increased time and cost.
85% 77%
41%
Increased time spent Increased cost Disrupted business, customer or client service
Increased time spent Increased cost
“A junior auditor needed more supervision as she was not familiar with the applicable law over the
5% loan account adjustment for FBT on more cars and thought a close Company could not have “Being more realistic - forgetting about the last dollar.”
more than one car and that a second/third car owned by the Company could not be used privately.
Wanted to apportion use between business and private use despite a 5% FBT adjustment being “Only undertake audits when evidence suggests non compliance. Don't waste
done.” everybody's time providing major amounts of information and then coming up with the
conclusion that nothing is amiss and no adjustments are required.”
“Audit is a witch hunt that will result in no additional tax due to tax losses. Complete waste of
time. IRD always put restrictive deadlines to provide info, and then don't respond for up to six
months. Complete joke!”
“Be quicker in their response time.”
Source: Q22: What impact did Inland Revenue have on your [client’s] business/organisation? Q24: How could Inland Revenue improve the tax audit experience for you?
Base 2018: Members who were involved in a tax audit in the last 12 months and where it had an impact on the normal running of the business, n=39.
Colmar Brunton 2018 27Eleven percent of those whose most recent audit resulted in a liability settled via a tax pool.
A direct payment to Inland Revenue Paid via a tax pool No payment was required
2018 31% 11% 58%
How the liability
2017 23% 16% 60%
was settled
2016 29% 14% 57%
Why didn’t pay via a tax pool
52% 39%
Didn’t think there was any advantage in paying via a tax pool Said something else, such as:
“Client had excess tax credits in another year, which we transferred to cover the
reassessment amount.”
4% “It was very small.”
Knew it was an option but didn’t think of it at the time
“Needed a payment arrangement.”
“No advantage to using tax pool.”
4% “Client’s confidentiality.”
Didn’t know it was an option
Source: Q24a. If the most recent audit you’ve been involved in results in a liability, was the liability settled by… Q24b. What was your main reason for not
making the payment via a tax pool?
Base 2018: Members who were involved in a completed tax audit in the last 12 months, n=74. Members involved in a completed tax audit who did not make a
payment via a tax pool n=23. Colmar Brunton 2018 28Fewer members now think that the perceived frequency of audits affects their clients’ compliance
behaviour.
11% 12% 6%
16%
31% 31% 48%
40%
28% 29%
25% 32%
30% 27%
20% 14%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Yes, for all or most of your clients Yes, but just for a few of your clients No Don’t know / NA
Public Practitioners* Yes, for all or most clients Yes, for a few clients No Don’t know / NA
Had contact with IR about Tax Audits in past 12 months (n=66) 14% 32% 48% 6%
Did not have contact with IR about Tax Audits in past 12 months (n=127) 17% 21% 28% 34%
Source: Q14b. Do you think the frequency, or perceived frequency, of Inland Revenue’s audits affects your clients compliance behaviour?
Base 2018: Public Practice CAs who have had contact with Inland revenue about a tax audit in the last 12 months, n=66. *NB: In 2016, 2017 and 2018 this
question was also asked to Public Practitioners who HADN’T had contact with IR in the last year about Tax Audits. These results are shown in the table. The
results in the main chart have been rebased on only those who’ve had contact about tax audits in the past year to maintain comparability to 2015 findings. Colmar Brunton 2018 29Contacting IR for processing
Colmar Brunton 2018 30The rating of contact with IR for processing remains similar to last year.
2% 5% 5%
8% 8% 7% 9%
26% 17% 15% 18%
19% 21% 17%
74%
2018 average
(good,
39% 38% very good,
42% 38%
44% 41% 39% excellent)
35% 32%
27% 30% 31%
24% 28%
5% 3% 6% 5% 7% 5% 5%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q12. And overall, how would you rate your experiences of contacting Inland Revenue for the processing of returns, assessments and/or payments?
Base 2018: All members who contacted IR for processing in the last 12 months n=260.
Colmar Brunton 2018 31Members are less satisfied with the speed of processing than last year and there have also been slight
drops in satisfaction with consistency and the process.
% rating excellent,
very good, or good
2018 7% 31% 36% 19% 8% 73%
Consistency and accuracy of processing
2017 6% 33% 36% 20% 4% 76%
2018 5% 27% 39% 18% 11% 71%
Having a straightforward process
2017 7% 30% 37% 18% 8% 74%
2018 5% 30% 33% 21% 12% 68%
Being error free in their processes
2017 6% 28% 34% 24% 8% 68%
2018 4% 26% 29% 24% 18% 58%
Speed of processing
2017 6% 25% 35% 19% 14% 66%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Source: Q11. Thinking about the occasions when you have contacted Inland Revenue about the processing of returns, assessments and/or payments
in the last 12 months, how would you rate them on each of the following?
Base 2018: All members who contacted IR for processing (excl. don’t know) n=260.
Colmar Brunton 2018 32Members are more likely to mention speed and staff knowledge as areas for improvement this year.
Provide more information about the status of return / review 75%
70%
Faster processing of returns 57%
55%
Improve website functionality 48%
47%
Improve call centre service 39%
44%
Improve follow up times 53%
43%
Employ more knowledgeable / better trained staff 51%
39%
Reduce amount of errors / improve checking processes 34%
38%
Faster payment of refunds 39%
28%
Improve Working for Families processing times 29%
27%
Other 8%
16%
2018 2017
Source: Q13. How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants contacting them about the processing of returns,
assessments and payments?
Base 2018: Members who contacted IR about processing and rated their overall experiences as good, fair or poor, n=166.
Colmar Brunton 2018 33A selection of the ‘other’ comments about improving processing
“Allow call-backs to mobiles as I don’t have a DDI.”
“Be more careful transferring based on EMS, so often wrong and then receive statements to say need to pay more when
it's a credit in another account.”
“Match payments to the return and period they relate to faster so we don’t get letters asking for a payment we have
already made.”
“Provide email addresses if additional information is required.”
Source: Q13. How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants contacting them about the processing of returns,
assessments and payments?
Colmar Brunton 2018 34Contacting IR for general information
Colmar Brunton 2018 35Almost nine out of ten members are satisfied with their experience seeking or requesting information from
IR.
1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%
12%
16%
10% 11% 11% 12% 10% 88%
2018 average
(good,
very good,
39% 40% excellent)
44% 45% 42% 41%
42%
40% 41%
37% 37% 40% 38%
37%
6% 6% 5% 8% 6% 7%
3%
2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018**
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs. **The 2018 figure is a weighted average of the rating of each individual type of information.
Source: Pre-2018 Q9. And overall, how would you rate your experience of seeking or receiving this information from Inland Revenue? 2018 Q8. Overall how would you rate the
relevance and understandability of …
Base 2018: All members who contacted IR for general information (excl. don’t know) n=277. Colmar Brunton 2018 36The level of satisfaction with each type of information is uniformly high.
73% 51% 45% 22% 38%
% sought and/or
received each type
(last 12 months)
Info on Tax info Public Other publications
Tax alerts
website bulletins rulings and brochures
11% 9% 9% 9%
9%
35% 45%
38% 43%
47%
overall relevance and
understandability
42% 46%
39% 33% 41%
7% 8% 6% 7% 5%
2018 2018 2018 2018 2018
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Members were asked to rate their experience seeking and/or receiving each item separately for the first time this year, previously they had just provided an overall rating of their
experience seeking and/or receiving – this is why there is no comparison to 2017.
Source: Q7. Which of the following sources of general information did you seek or receive from Inland Revenue in the last 12 months? Q8. Overall how would you rate the relevance and
understandability of … Excl. Don’t know. Base % sought or received: All members n=344. Base % rating: Members who contacted IR for that type of information, website n=251, tax
bulletins n=173, tax alerts n=154, public rulings n=75, other publications n=132. Colmar Brunton 2018 37Members would like to see a dedicated phone line or email address for their information requests and an
improvement to website functionality.
27%
23% 22%
18%
11%
7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 6%
2%
Have dedicated Improve website Have experienced Provide faster Provide more Have more staff Ensure Provide consistent Answer phones Ensure Make the website Other
phone line / email search / knowledgeable responses examples / available correspondence is responses quicker information on the more user friendly
address / staff functionality staff information on the clear / simple / website is correct /
available website precise up to date
Have dedicated phone line/email/address/staff available Have experienced/knowledgeable staff
“First, answer the phone and have knowledgeable people answering. More often than not, you are unable to
“Allowing better access to IRD through the IRD a Tax Agent Manager system. Allowing us to get through to them especially around the key tax dates. Then when you do, they are unable to answer your
develop a better working relationship where we can obtain information about who to contact, question or cut you short as they have to go on a break, or they can only be on the phone for a hour. Often you
where to obtain information & what to do if we encounter certain situations. It’s useful having can call and speak to two different call centre people on the same matter and get two differing answers. If this
someone to go to just to say this is what you need to do, this is where you get the information & is occurring to tax agents, who know the law and can sort the right from wrong answer, imagine how an
this is where you send it.” average member of the public with no tax acknowledge feels. The IRD need to ensure every tax agency has a
dedicated person, who is available for them to contact and have issues addressed in a timely manner. This does
“Designated contact people, more consistency from contact centre (some say one thing, some say not mean contacting your tax agent manager and they saying they will get back to you within five working
another) I've know people to ring back just to get another person who will do what they need.” days. Generally, by the time you need to contact your tax agency manager the issue has become urgent.
“Easier access by telephone to appropriate trained personnel.” “Have better trained staff who can deal with queries straight away instead of having to go on hold while they
talk to technical team.”
“Have a dedicated phone line for those not in public practice. Time is precious and frustrating not
getting the info you need when you need it.” “Have properly trained and capable staff available [and enough of them , reducing numbers is a joke!] e.g.
recent experience of 40 minutes being told a transfer could not be done. Call back , get right person, done in 2
minutes !! Extrapolate this cost , massive!”
Source: Q10: How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants seeking or receiving information from them?
Base 2018: All members who contacted IR for general information and rated the service good, fair or poor n=83
Colmar Brunton 2018 38Members would like to see a dedicated phone line or email address for their information requests and an
improvement to website functionality, cont.
27%
23% 22%
18%
11%
7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 6%
2%
Have dedicated Improve website Have experienced Provide faster Provide more Have more staff Ensure Provide consistent Answer phones Ensure Make the website Other
phone line / email search / knowledgeable responses examples / available correspondence is responses quicker information on the more user friendly
address / staff functionality staff information on the clear / simple / website is correct /
available website precise up to date
Improve website search functionality Provide more examples/information on the website
“As always the devil is in the detail. Often the info on the website or in publications can be general
“Their search engine sucks - I will often use Google instead…” in nature and you have to dig around to find the detail you need.”
“Better search engine. Not sure how this would be improved but a lot of the time it doesn’t bring “More tax examples, like you have in some tax guides, but more.”
forms up because I've entered the number with/without a space.”
“They need to provide better on-line search facilities that provide more accurate information for
“Better search function on the website - currently it seems that a user has to be very specific in the queries entered. Currently very frustrating, which usually results in having to make a phone call.
search words/phrases used to get to an area of answers. If your thinking or vocabulary is different to Then often when the query can’t be answered directly we get asked to send an internal email.
the website designers then search results are incorrect or irrelevant.” That's may not be practical due to the time it takes to get an answer via that system. Perhaps they
need more staff with technical skills involved in answering email queries so that process is faster. Be
“If you use the "Search" function when you are looking for information on the IRD's website masses of great if they could provide references to technical publications etc for more in depth information.”
information can appear - some sort of aging or two tier search ability could be useful if this is possible.”
“Maybe a portal for chartered accountants with proper technical information (i.e. not dumbed
“Improve search engine on IRD website - often easier to search on Google rather than directly on IRD down for general public).”
website to find the info you are looking for…”
“Provide real life examples, case studies, tips and lessons learnt from business experiences.”
Source: Q10: How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants seeking or receiving information from them?
Base 2018: All members who contacted IR for general information and rated the service good, fair or poor n=83
Colmar Brunton 2018 39Involvement in disputes processes
Caution: results in this section based on very small sample sizes
Colmar Brunton 2018 40The proportion of members involved in a disputes process same as last year.
94%
No involvement / none of these
94%
5%
The issue or receipt of a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA)
4%
2%
Taking part in a conference
3%
2%
The issue or receipt of Statements of Position
2%
3%
The issue or receipt of a Notice of Response (NOR)
3%
1%
Adjudication
1%
Case being filed in court
Other
2018 2017
Source: Q30a. In which, if any, of the following ways have you been involved in a Disputes Process [on behalf of a client/your company/your organisation]?
Base 2018: All respondents, n=344.
Colmar Brunton 2018 41Small sample sizes continue to drive a fluctuating result for the incidence of IR settled disputes. The
majority of disputes continue to be settled by mutual agreement.
Inland Revenue agreed to settle the dispute It was by mutual agreement Taxpayer agreed to settle the dispute
2018 24% 59% 18%
2017 7% 60% 33%
2016 28% 46% 26%
2015 6% 62% 32%
Reasons the taxpayer agreed to settle in 2018
Time commitment too great 42%
Cost of continuing too great 50%
Settlement considered appropriate 50%
Inland Revenue had the better position 17%
Unwilling to suffer reputational damage by going to court 8%
Caution: small sample size
Source: Q30d. Which party agreed to settle the dispute? Q30e. What were the main reasons the taxpayer decided to settle the dispute?
Base 2018: All members who have been involved in a completed disputes process (excl. don’t know) n=17; All members involved in a taxpayer or mutually settled dispute
(excl. don’t know) n=12 Colmar Brunton 2018 42The perception that IR is fair and understanding has declined slightly from 2017, however it is still much
better than when the question was first asked.
2018 23% 46% 15% 15%
Considered fairly the 2017 36% 36% 21% 7%
taxpayer's position
2016 8% 58% 15% 19%
2015 5% 14% 26% 24%
2018 23% 23% 31% 23%
2017 29% 36% 21% 14%
Understood the
taxpayer's position 2016 8% 38% 35% 19%
2015 7% 17% 33% 15%
To a great extent To some extent Not very much Not at all
Caution: small sample size
Source: Q30f. To what extent do you think Inland Revenue did the following before the taxpayer decided to settle the dispute?
Base 2018: All members involved in a taxpayer or mutually settled dispute (excl. don’t know/not applicable) n=13.
Colmar Brunton 2018 43The perception that cases are finalised in favour of IR over the taxpayer is consistent over the last four
years, despite the small sample size.
3 6
6% 18 14
12%
23% 14%
15%
24%
21%
18%
51%
30% 36% 47%
17% 18% 14% 12%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Entirely in IR's Predominantly in IR's Approximately evenly Predominantly in the taxpayer's Entirely in the taxpayer's
Caution: small sample size
Source: Q30g. In whose favour was the matter finalised?
Base 2018: All respondents who have been involved in a completed disputes process (excl. don’t know) n=17.
Colmar Brunton 2018 44The incidence of disputes being resolved after the NOPA is increasing over the last three years, and in 2018 over a
third of resolutions happen at this point. The incidence of resolution after the case has been filed in court is nil in 2017
and 2018.
3
14
29% 29%
33%
26%
21%
29%
17% 31%
14%
17% 21%
17%
36%
26% 21%
17%
2015 2016 2017 2018
After the NOPA After the NOR At the conference After the statements of position After the case had been filed at court
Caution: small sample size
Source: Q30h. At what stage of the disputes process was the matter resolved?
Base 2018: All respondents who have been involved in a completed disputes process (excl. don’t know) n=14.
Colmar Brunton 2018 45Business transformation
Colmar Brunton 2018 46Over two-thirds of members rate the MyGST system favourably. Corporate and other members are
more positive about MyGST system than Public Practice members.
All members Public Practice Corporate, public sector,
members and not-for-profit members
7% 9% 5%
12%
22%
30%
27%
30%
32%
42%
33%
27%
14%
7% 3%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Source: Q42. MyGST was introduced in 2017, how do you think the MyGST system is operating now?
Base 2018: All Public Practice members (excl. don’t know) n=187, all non-Public Practice members (excl. don’t know) n=138.
Colmar Brunton 2018 47Awareness of the upcoming business transformation changes has increased from 2017 to 2018 among
the corporate and other members.
Public Practice Corporate, public sector, and not-
members for-profit members
6% 4% 5% 5%
14% 19%
33% 36%
35% 42%
60%
48%
53%
2018 average 52%
(a lot or a 2018 average
46% reasonable (a lot or a
45% 47% amount) reasonable
44% amount)
27%
22%
14% 17% 13% 11% 7% 9%
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Heard a lot about it Heard a reasonable amount about it Heard a little about it Not heard anything about it
Source: Q43a. How aware are you of the changes that will happen as part of Inland Revenue’s Business Transformation, e.g. regarding PAYE and
investment income information, individuals’ tax returns and social policy administration?
Base 2018: All Public Practice members n=193, all non-Public Practice members n=151.
Colmar Brunton 2018 48Correspondingly, perceptions among corporate and other members that their clients are ready for the
new system has also increased.
Public Practice Corporate, public sector, and not-
members for-profit members
7% 6%
11%
16% 16% 18% 4%
10%
15% 9% 4%
13% 29%
61%
33% 38% 2018
58% average
54% 47% (very or
quite ready)
56%
25%
37% 36%
2018
22% 23% average
18% (very or
2% 2% 2% quite ready) 5% 3% 5%
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Very ready Quite ready Not that ready Not at all ready Not thinking about it yet
Source: Q43c. How would you rate [ . . . your organisation’s / your clients’…] readiness for the new tax administration system?
Base 2018: All Public Practice members n=193, all non-Public Practice members n=151
Colmar Brunton 2018 49There has been a sharp decline in the corporate and other members desire for more information on the
business transformation, while there has been no change amongst Public Practice members.
Public Practice Corporate, public sector, and not-
members for-profit members
2% 1% 3%
2% 2% 1% 3% 1%
1%
36%
41%
52% 54% 53%
60%
60%
55%
45% 42% 45%
38%
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
More information About the same Less information No information
Source: Q43b. Thinking about the information on Business Transformation provided by Inland Revenue, would you like to receive…
Base 2018: All Public Practice members n=193, all non-Public Practice members n=151.
Colmar Brunton 2018 50Members, particularly those in Public Practice, have a low level of satisfaction with their opportunity to
provide feedback on the new system.
43% average (excellent, very good, good)
All members 1% 12% 30% 28% 19% 10%
Opportunity to
provide feedback on Public Practice members 8% 25% 33% 25% 9%
the new system
Corporate and other members 2% 18% 36% 23% 11% 11%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Don't know
Source: Q43d. Thinking about the release of Business Transformation developments over the past 12 months, how would you rate opportunities to provide feedback on the new
system?
Base 2018: All members n=344, all Public Practice members n=193, all non-Public Practice members n=151.
Colmar Brunton 2018 51Corporate and other members rate the operation of, and the response to feedback on, the IR’s new FBT,
RWT, AIM, AEOI and payroll filing system better than Public Practice members.
55% 2018 average (excellent, very good, good)
How do you think All
Allmembers
members 2% 17% 36% 32% 14%
Inland Revenue’s
FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI
and payroll filing Public Practice members 10% 33% 42% 15%
system is operating
now?
Corporate and other members 4% 25% 40% 19% 12%
47% 2018 average (excellent, very good, good)
Allmembers
All members 1% 11% 35% 28% 25%
How would you rate
Inland Revenue's
response to feedback on Public Practice members 6% 32% 32% 30%
the FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI
and payroll filing system?
Corporate and other members 3% 17% 40% 22% 17%
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
Source: Q45a. Thinking about the roll out of FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI (Automatic Exchange of Information), and payroll filing in the past 6 months. How would you rate Inland
Revenue’s response to feedback on their new system? Q45b. Thinking about the roll out of Inland Revenue’s FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI (Automatic Exchange of Information) and
payroll filing please rate how you think the system is operating now?
Base 2018: All members (excl. don’t know) n≈344, all Public Practice members (excl. don’t know) n≈193, all non-Public Practice members (excl. don’t know) n≈151. Colmar Brunton 2018 52Members think the FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI and payroll filing system could be easier to navigate, provide better
access to client information and be more user friendly.
Easier to navigate 44%
Better access to historic client information 42%
More user friendly / intuitive 40%
Alerts need to specify which client/return they relate to 32%
Less time consuming 27%
Preferred the old system 15%
Other 17%
None, I am happy with the new system 11%
Source: Q45c. In what ways do you think Inland Revenue’s new system for FBT, RWT, AIM, AEOI (Automatic Exchange of Information), and payroll filing could be improved?
Base 2018: All members (excl. don’t know) n=288.
Note: question format change in 2018, results are not comparable with previous
Colmar Brunton 2018 53Members see the role of tax agents as primarily helping their clients navigate the system. They think their roles will be
similar to how they are now, and that they will help to detect and solve errors. Some members think that IR is
attempting to phase out tax agents.
“Helping clients adjust to the new system and reporting back to Inland Revenue on the changes.”
Helping clients navigate the system/avoid compliance problems 13%
“The first contact with the client should be with the agent - the agent's role is hugely important in
helping the taxpayer understand and navigate the system to meet their obligations.”
“Providing the interface between IR and the client who typically are not comfortable navigating IR
It will be business as usual 8% systems and requirements alone.”
“More or less the same. Tax agents play an important role in facilitating voluntary compliance by helping
IR are trying to phase out tax agents 5% taxpayers comply with their obligations. As business transformation beds in, the ways in which this is
done will change, but this role will essentially remain the same.”
Picking up and solving errors made by the client or IR 5% “The IRD are trying their best to eliminate tax agents and we are becoming more and more ‘fix it’ people
as the IRD really doesn’t understand the businesses of the taxpayer and just boxes on ahead blindly until
it all goes wrong. They appear to have a close enough is good enough attitude and also seem to have a
disregard for tax law allowing accounts to be closed incorrectly. No-one within the department is taking
responsibility for the huge cost piled onto tax agents for the ineffective testing of the system. It is slow,
Clients don't want to deal directly with IR 3% not reporting in real time and doesn’t provide agents with running account balances. They are promoting
a system whereby taxpayers are purported to be skilled in the knowledge of the Income Tax Act and
adopting a do-it-yourself approach.”
Advantages for tax agents 2%
“Tax Agents need to continue to be involved as in the past. In a perfect world, clients could handle their
relationship with IRD, but at best they have only a basic knowledge of tax and accounting matters and
will make many costly errors of principle.”
Source: Q45d. How do you see the role of tax agents in the new tax administration system?
Note: The chart shows the main themes of the responses only.
Base 2018: All members n=344
Colmar Brunton 2018 54The majority of members would like all information and service aspects of the new income tax system to be
available at least 3 months before go live. One in ten think much of the information should already have been
provided.
Provide information for system administrators 13% 35% 38% 11% 2%1%
Provide information for principals in firms 13% 34% 37% 11% 2% 3%
Provide information on what needs to be input into the system before day one 11% 30% 43% 15% 2%
Contact from IR re key features of new system 12% 26% 40% 18% 2%1%
Provide information for return preparers 10% 28% 41% 19% 2% 1%
Provide information on what needs to be input into the system on day one 10% 25% 39% 23% 3%
Access to system for user familiarisation 12% 20% 38% 26% 3%1%
Provide information on what reports are available 8% 20% 40% 26% 5% 1%
Provide information on system down time for rollover to new system 8% 18% 37% 33% 2%2%
I would like this to have already happened 6 months before ‘go live’ 3 months before ‘go live’ 1 month before ‘go live’ On ‘go live’ date Not necessary to provide
Source: Q46a. Now thinking about the planned roll out of the new income tax system in April 2019. Please indicate when you would like Inland Revenue to do each of the
following.
Base 2018: All members (excl. don’t know/not applicable) n≈344.
Colmar Brunton 2018 55One quarter of members think IR should already have trained staff on the new income tax system. One third
of members think user training should be carried out 1-3 months before go live.
Training for IR staff 26% 27% 29% 15% 2% 1%
User training on new system from IR – online 8% 16% 38% 33% 4% 2%
User training on new system from IR – in person 7% 14% 31% 31% 2% 16%
I would like this to have already happened 6 months before ‘go live’ 3 months before ‘go live’ 1 month before ‘go live’ On ‘go live’ date Not necessary to provide
Source: Q46a. Now thinking about the roll out of the new income tax system. Please indicate when you would like Inland Revenue to do each of the following. Q46b. And please
indicate when you would like Inland Revenue to do each of the following types of training.
Base 2018: All members (excl. don’t know/not applicable) n≈344.
Colmar Brunton 2018 56Members want to see the system thoroughly tested by actual users prior to roll out.
More/comprehensive testing prior to roll-out/tested by key users of system 19%
“Dummy returns, or example returns.”
Ensure it is an improvement on the current system/has more functionality 15%
“Focus groups, or test users selected from ‘normal users’ not just IT people as they will
better detect points which are faulty or need greater clarity of explanation.”
Ensure good training is provided/the trainers are knowledgeable 10%
“Responsibility. A testing system whereby if it fails we are able to invoice them for our live
Listen to feedback/have user reviews/surveys on any improvements 8% testing, Account managers who aren’t so overworked they can respond to us. Training on a
version that will be the version rolled out love instead of the fiasco that was phase 1. In house
Ensure IRD staff are well trained/knowledgeable 8% staff training on a version of the system that will run live. A support line dedicated to the roll
out of the system that is accessible to agents that doesn’t take 45 mins to reach. If it
purported to report in real time then it should do exactly that. A system that allows transfers
Provide information/a summary of changes/benefits 6%
to take effect immediately – current PAYE transfers take 15 days to become visible.”
Consult with tax agents, accountants, key users about what is required in a system 6% “Testing of the new system by tax agents/accountants prior to go live to ensure most of the
bugs are identified and fixed before roll out.”
Ensure IRD are flexible/understanding with users 5%
Communication/updates on progress 5%
“An indication field so that refunds are not paid out.”
Dedicated helpline/support 4%
“Ability to file IR4J’s online. Ability to action transfers online.”
Provide a Q & A facility to help users 3%
“Enable IR6 returns to be filed electronically via IRD website.”
Manuals/user guides available 3% “I think all returns should be able to be filed online e.g. IR9’s.”
Ensure it is rolled at a practical time of year 3% “Improve email notifications so that they advise at least the IRD to which they relate. Provide
the facility to opt out of certain notifications e.g. payment due etc.”
Other 10%
“Please ensure the system will handle the volume as at times the online portal is already
becoming overloaded and losing formatting integrity, especially on GST due dates.”
Source: Q46c. What other activities (additional to those mentioned in the previous two questions) would you like to see Inland Revenue undertake in relation to the new
income tax system, either before or after roll-out?
Base 2018: All members who commented n=78
Colmar Brunton 2018 57Contact with tax agents’ clients
Colmar Brunton 2018 58Two thirds of Public Practice members have had clients contacted directly by IR. The contact has been
about a range of things, but most frequently shorter term outstanding debt.
% of Public Practice members whose clients have Main reason for the contact
reported being contacted directly by Inland Revenue
Outstanding debt 2 years 27%
34%
Public relations visit 15%
Keeping business records 13%
Education 13%
66%
Meet and greet 8%
Industry benchmarking 3%
Other educational visit 2%
Yes, IR has directly contacted tax agents' clients Other 25%
No, IR has not directly contacted tax agents' clients
Source: Q47a. There have been reported instances in the past six months where Inland Revenue has directly contacted tax agents’ clients. Have any of your clients reported
this to you? Q47b. What has been the main reason for the contact?
Base 2018: All public practice members n=193, All public practice members whose clients have been contacted directly by Inland Revenue (excl. don’t know) n=120
Colmar Brunton 2018 59A telephone call is the most common way clients were contacted by IR, followed by mail.
64%
43%
31%
26%
18%
4%
1%
Telephone Mail In person visit Email Text message Other Don’t know
Source: Q47c. What was the method of contact?
Base 2018: All public practise members whose clients have been contacted directly by Inland Revenue n=120.
Colmar Brunton 2018 60Contact directly from IR to the client is not well received, it confuses clients and creates additional work
for the agents, the clients and IR. Some think the contact from IR is not genuine but a scam.
“A taxpayer engages an agent for a purpose. Part of that is to front dealings with the IRD. If the IRD is going direct to clients without the agents knowledge then this puts the relationship at risk. This does not assist in
fostering a good open relationship with clients as it puts into the question the purpose of having an agent.”
“Annoys the client as they expect me to deal with the IRD.”
“You have confused the issue. Causing clients to pay twice, worry about scams etc. For us good agents you should just leave well enough alone. STOP texting and emails - they are so unsafe.”
“Clients confused by direct and poorly explained content presented by persistent IRD staff.”
“It caused confusion by the client, they didn't understand why IRD approached them directly when they have a tax agent. They expect us to deal with their tax matters. Some of the issues arose through IRD stuff
ups, which we would have just sorted behind the scenes as usual, but they caused anxiety for our clients when IRD contacted them directly.”
“It undermines our relationship. The client loses confidence in us. And when it relates to a default assessment or IR error, the client is left very confused. In the first instance they think it is a scammer.”
“Wasted our time explaining the situation to the client why IRD was contacting them rather than us.”
“This has caused confusion for the client. We have had to advise whether or not this was a scam.”
“They get annoyed - they don't want to deal with Inland Revenue. It confuses them.”
“This has been frustrating. We end up answering panicked calls from clients, when in actual fact everything is under control. They have a tax agent for a reason.”
“The clients are confused why they are getting contacted directly especially with so many scam emails. It is creating unnecessary stress and extra accounting charges. Most clients pay accountants so they don’t have
to deal with IRD. Those with little tax knowledge get very confused.”
“It is very confusing for the client. It is often incorrect as well, as there are transfers still to be actioned. I wish it would not happen.”
Source: Q47d. How has this contact affected your practice or your relationship with your client?
Base 2018: All public practise members whose clients have been contacted directly by Inland Revenue n=120.
Colmar Brunton 2018 61AIM
Colmar Brunton 2018 62Relatively few members are using AIM or have clients using it.
Corporate, public sector, and not-for-profit members Public practice members
9% 3% 7% 2% 4%
11%
18%
13%
64% 70%
Already using Yes, thinking about using I’m waiting for greater 21 or more client using AIM or
AIM AIM uptake before deciding 11-20 6-10
intending to start in next 12 months
No Don’t know 1-5 None Don’t know
Source: Q49. Are you thinking about using AIM? Source: Q49a. How many clients are using AIM or likely to switch to AIM in the next 12 months?
Base 2018: All non-Public Practice members n=151. Base 2018: All Public Practice members n=193
Colmar Brunton 2018 63Perceptions that AIM will provide certainty of tax payments continues to decrease over time. Corporate
and other members have more confidence than public practice members.
Provide certainty
28% 2018 average (great or some extent)
2018 5% 23% 24% 39% 9%
All members
2017 6% 32% 27% 25% 10%
2016 10% 36% 27% 20% 8%
2018 5% 19% 26% 43% 7%
Public Practice 2017 4% 34% 37% 19% 7%
members
2016 9% 37% 34% 14% 6%
2018 5% 28% 20% 34% 13%
Corporate and 2017 8% 29% 17% 31% 14%
other members
2016 10% 35% 18% 27% 10%
To a great extent To some extent To a small extent Not at all Don't know
Source: Q49b. To what extent do you think the AIM will make provisional tax more certain for [ . . . your organisation / your clients . . .]?
Base 2018: All members n=344, Public Practice members n=193, all non-Public Practice members n=151.
Colmar Brunton 2018 64You can also read
