Can your client sign their ATO tax return declaration electronically?

Current as at 8 September 2026. Statutory text was read from the authorised compilation on the Federal Register of Legislation on that date; every ATO page quoted was retrieved the same day and its QC number and "last updated" date is recorded in the sources.

There are two signatures in a tax agent lodgment, and they follow different rules

Almost every wrong answer to this question comes from the same mistake: treating "signing a tax return" as one act. It is two, and they have nothing in common except the word signature.

The first is the declaration your client gives you. The second is the credential you use when you lodge. Different provision, different recipient, different definition of "signature", different retention rule, different person responsible. Once you separate them, the confusion disappears.

The two signatures, side by side. Current as at 8 September 2026.

Everything below expands one row of that table.

The client's declaration: what section 388-65 actually requires

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Schedule 1, s 388-65 is short. In Compilation No. 226 (compilation date 27 August 2026) it reads, in relevant part:

(1) If a return, notice, statement, application or other document of yours is to be given to the Commissioner in the approved form by an agent on your behalf, you must make a declaration in writing: (a) stating that you have authorised the agent to give the document to the Commissioner; and (b) declaring that any information you provided to the agent for the preparation of the document is true and correct.

(2) You must give the declaration to the agent.

(3) You must retain the declaration or a copy of it for: (a) 5 years after it is made; or (b) a shorter period determined by the Commissioner in writing for you; or (c) a shorter period determined by the Commissioner by legislative instrument for a class of entities that includes you.

(4) You must produce the declaration or copy if requested to do so within that period by the Commissioner.

(5) The agent must not give the document to the Commissioner before you make the declaration.

(6) You must sign the declaration.

Six obligations, and note who they fall on. "You" throughout is the client, not the agent. The client makes it, gives it, signs it, retains it and produces it. The agent's only obligation in the section is negative: do not lodge first.

A source warning, because it matters here more than anywhere. The ATO Legal Database's copy of the Taxation Administration Act is supplied by CCH Australia, and its rendering of s 388-65 stops at subsection (4) — it does not show subsection (6). If you have read s 388-65 there and concluded that there is no signature requirement at all, that is why. Read it on the Federal Register of Legislation.

So how does an email with a typed name satisfy "you must sign the declaration"?

This is the apparent contradiction that stops practices going paperless, and it resolves cleanly in three steps.

Step 1 — s 388-75 does not apply to this document. Section 388-75 is the provision that prescribes how a declaration is signed, and it is drafted entirely around documents given to the Commissioner: subsections (1) and (2) deal with paper given to the Commissioner, subsection (3) with documents "lodged electronically", subsection (4) with documents given by telephone. The s 388-65 declaration is given to the agent. It never reaches the Commissioner unless she asks for it under s 388-65(4). So no signature method is prescribed for it.

That is reinforced by the definition of the trigger term. Under s 995-1(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, a document is "lodged electronically" only "if it is transmitted to the Commissioner in an electronic format approved by the Commissioner". An email to your office is not that.

Step 2 — with no prescribed method, the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 does the work. Two sections of it, and they are precisely the two the ATO's own guidance page points to.

• ETA s 9 converts the "in writing" requirement. A Commonwealth-law requirement to give information in writing is met by electronic communication where it was reasonable to expect the information would be "readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference", and — because a tax agent is not a Commonwealth entity — where the recipient consents to receiving it that way. Section 9(5) removes any doubt that this applies: it lists what counts as "giving information", and paragraph (f) is "making a declaration".
• ETA s 10 converts the signature requirement. A signature requirement is met if a method is used "to identify the person and to indicate the person's intention in respect of the information communicated", the method was "as reliable as appropriate for the purpose … in the light of all the circumstances" or is proven in fact to have done the job, and the recipient consents to that method. We have written up how those conditions work in practice: are electronic signatures legally binding in Australia?

Step 3 — the consent is yours, and it can be inferred. Under ETA s 10(1)(d) the person who must consent is the person the signature is given to. That is the agent. And ETA s 5 defines consent to include "consent that can reasonably be inferred from the conduct of the person concerned" — so accepting the email and lodging on the strength of it is itself the consent.

The ATO says all of this in its own words on Client declarations and lodgment online (QC 41425, last updated 1 July 2026):

If information is required to be given in writing, it can be given electronically if the person receiving the information consents to receiving it electronically.

Consent does not have to be explicit and can be inferred from a person's conduct.

A method that is reasonable is used to identify the person's signature (for example, their email address).

if your client chooses to send their declaration by email, they do not need to include their scanned signature.

the action of sending the email and the agent accepting the information and then using that as a basis for lodging the approved form is sufficient.

The client's email address is the ATO's own worked example of a reasonable method of identifying a signature. That is the sentence the whole question turns on, and almost nobody quotes it.

The honest consequence, which we will state plainly: a practice does not need an e-signature platform to comply with s 388-65. A typed name and date in an email satisfies it. Any page that tells you otherwise is selling you something. What a platform changes is a different set of problems, and they are set out further down.

What the declaration has to say

The ATO's model wording, from the same page:

I, (name of business client) authorise (name of agent) to give the (specify the period) activity statement to the Commissioner of Taxation for (entity name).

I declare that the information provided for the preparation of this activity statement is true and correct.

I am authorised to make this declaration.

[Insert for emailed declaration] Type full name and date

And the rule the ATO draws from all six of its worked examples:

The following examples show that no matter which method is used: a declaration must be given each time you lodge an approved form; the declaration must be written, for example in an email or letter. A phone conversation is not sufficient.; the declaration must state that the information provided by the taxpayer is true and correct [and that the] taxpayer has authorised you to lodge the specified approved form.

Two more details from the examples that are worth knowing and are not widely repeated:

• The declaration does not have to travel with the return. "It is not necessary to attach the activity statement or tax return to an email providing the declaration" — and where a client does attach it, the ATO suggests removing identifying information in case the email goes astray.
• The declaration can be a separate email. In Example 3, a client sends the information and the declaration in two different emails. That is fine "if the relevant approved form is clearly identified."

Example 6: the failure case the ATO published, and what it costs

This is the one to internalise, because it is the only documented example of a declaration the ATO says does not work. Quoting QC 41425:

Example 6: information in separate emails

Yanni's client, Kate, provides her tax return electronically but doesn't complete the declaration field. She then sends a separate email advising that the tax return she sent previously is true and correct.

Kate has met the requirements for 'true and correct', however the declaration has not been sufficiently specified. It is not enough to state that the tax return sent previously is true and correct. That could refer to any tax return Kate sent previously. It needs to be more specific, for example, by referring to the year of the tax return or date of the previous email.

Read what actually failed. Kate said the right words. She said them in writing. She said them by a method the ATO accepts. The declaration failed on identification of the document — the one thing a free-text email is structurally bad at and a client under time pressure will always get wrong.

That is the real risk in an email-based declaration process, and it is not a legal risk about e-signatures. It is an administrative risk about ambiguity, and it only surfaces years later when the Commissioner asks under s 388-65(4) and nobody can prove which return the email referred to.

The agent's side: a closed system, and no product can enter it

When you lodge, the form itself must carry your electronic signature: s 388-75(3)(b) requires that a document lodged electronically by an agent "must contain the agent's declaration (see section 388-70) with the agent's electronic signature".

"Electronic signature" here is a defined term with a narrow, non-obvious meaning. Section 995-1(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997:

electronic signature of an entity means a unique identification of the entity in electronic form that is approved by the Commissioner.

Not a drawn signature. Not a typed name. Not a signing platform's certificate. A credential, and one the Commissioner has formally approved by written instrument. Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2005/20 — Signature requirements for approved virtual forms, lodged electronically or given by phone, issued 11 November 2005, current version 2 April 2026 — sets out the approval process and, at Appendix 3, lists what has been approved. In the Practice Statement's own words:

PS LA 2005/20 ¶17 adds the practice-specific detail: "For lodgment via the practitioner lodgment service, a tax agent certificate is required, comprising the tax agents' declaration together with their electronic signature."

There is no application process for a commercial e-signature vendor here, and there is not going to be one, because the object being approved is an identity credential issued by government, not a signature applied to a document. Any marketing that suggests otherwise — anyone's — is wrong and trivially disproved. We would rather you hear that from us.

The Electronic Transactions Act agrees, incidentally. Section 10(2)(b) provides that s 10 "does not affect the operation of any other law of the Commonwealth that makes provision for or in relation to requiring … an electronic communication to contain a unique identification in an electronic form." That is a direct carve-out for exactly the regime described above: the ETA's flexible signature rule stops at the ATO's door, which is precisely why the client's declaration and the agent's credential land on opposite sides of the line.

The Commissioner's own three-part test, which nobody quotes

PS LA 2005/20 ¶9 states what an ATO officer must be satisfied of before approving a form of electronic signature. It is the closest thing there is to an official Australian statement of what makes an electronic signature good enough:

The approving officer must approve a signature that: is adequate to authenticate the identity of the entity signing the declaration in a form; minimises the risk that the declarations made can be repudiated or denied by the entity signing the declaration in a form; is linked to and in the control of the signatory and to no other entity.

Identity, non-repudiation, exclusive control. It is a useful yardstick for any signing process in a practice, including ones that have nothing to do with the ATO.

Two caveats, stated so this is not misread. PS LA 2005/20 is an internal instruction to ATO staff, published externally in the interest of open tax administration — it binds ATO officers, not taxpayers, and it is not law. And ¶9 governs the approval of credentials for lodgment. Meeting those three properties does not make anything an approved electronic signature; only the Commissioner's instrument of approval does that.

FBT employee declarations: a different rule, and a stricter one

This is the part that surprises people, and it is materially different from everything above.

If you are collecting employee declarations for fringe benefits tax, the ATO does require an electronic signature. From About declarations (QC 17516, last updated 26 March 2024):

You can receive employee declarations electronically if the declaration is signed by the employee using an electronic signature. Employees can provide employee declarations to you in the approved electronic format if both: you consented to the method of electronic signature; [and] the electronic declaration … is both readily accessible and understandable [and] convertible into written English.

And from Employee declarations (QC 71177, last updated 26 March 2024):

You can also accept employee declarations electronically, with the employee's electronic signature. An electronic declaration provided through a secure email or payroll system (that requires the employee to sign in with a password) is acceptable.

The detail lives in Fringe benefits tax — a guide for employers, chapter 4.9 Electronic declarations:

You can receive employee declarations electronically. However, the declaration still must be signed by the employee using an electronic signature.

The electronic declaration must contain the same information as is required for approved paper declarations.

The electronic declaration must be provided using a secure system, and in a way that clearly identifies the employee and indicates their approval of the information being provided. A secure system could be a system that requires a personal identification number, access code or password to use.

Chapter 4.9 then gives four worked examples. Three are acceptances — a password-protected work email address, a payroll-system form behind a login, and a home email address where the employer is satisfied the declaration came from the employee using a secure system. The fourth is a rejection, and it is the instructive one:

An employer has an email system that allows employees to action emails on behalf of other employees. Pam Smith, an employee, is given permission by her manager Jim Jones, to action emails on Jim's behalf while Jim is on leave. The 'From' line of emails actioned for Jim appears as 'Pam Smith on behalf of Jim Jones'. An employee declaration received via email with the 'From' line 'Pam Smith on behalf of Jim Jones' would not be acceptable because it doesn't contain the employee's approval of the information communicated.

So the FBT rule is not "email is fine". It is: secure system, clear [identification of the individual](/resources/how-to-verify-a-clients-identity-online-australia), and evidence of that individual's own approval. A delegated mailbox breaks it. A shared address breaks it. That is a real, checkable standard, and it is the mirror image of the s 388-65 position.

The rest of the FBT declaration rules, for completeness:

• Timing. You must obtain all employee declarations no later than the day your FBT return lodgment is due; if you do not have to lodge a return, by 21 May.
• Do not send them to us. The ATO says so twice: "Do not send us the declarations. You are required to keep these as part of your business records."
• Retention. "Keep employee declarations with your business records for 5 years." Chapter 4.1 of the FBT guide puts the general FBT rule as five years "from the date they are prepared, obtained or the transactions completed".
• Form. Declarations must be in a form approved by the Commissioner (chapter 4.8), and the approved wording is in the declaration forms themselves.
• Alternative records. From 1 April 2024 (the FBT year ending 31 March 2025) employers have a choice, for certain benefits, to use existing business records in place of some employee declarations — but only where the Commissioner has made a determination by legislative instrument setting out what the alternative records must contain.

Why we are pointing this out. The s 388-65 declaration is the famous question, and the honest answer is that it does not need a signing platform. The FBT employee declaration is the quiet one, it does require an electronic signature by the ATO's own words, it has a published secure-system standard, and it is almost unwritten about. If you are looking for where a signing workflow earns its place in an accounting practice's FBT season, it is here.

Single Touch Payroll: the one standing declaration

The note to s 388-65(1) disapplies the subsection where a declaration is made under s 389-35(2) for a Division 389 notification. This is the one exception to "no bulk declarations", and it is narrow.

Under s 389-35(2), an employer may make a declaration in writing stating that it has authorised the agent to give one or more Division 389 notifications, declaring that the information provided or to be provided is or will be true and correct, and "specifying the day the declaration is made and the maximum period for the declaration (which must not exceed 12 months starting on the day the declaration is made)".

Section 389-35(4) then ends that period at the earliest of three events: the last day specified in the declaration; the day the agent is notified the employer has withdrawn it; or — the limb that gets missed — the day the agent becomes aware of, or is notified of, "a material change in the relationship between the entity and the agent, or in the affairs of the entity since the declaration was made".

Note also s 389-35(3)(b): subsections 388-65(2) to (6) still apply to that declaration. So the standing STP declaration still has to be given to the agent, signed, retained for five years and produced on request. Only the per-lodgment cadence goes away.

Five things widely repeated about this, and what is actually true

1. "The ATO requires a wet signature on client declarations." No. The ATO's own guidance says the declaration may be given "by email, fax or in paper form", and that an emailed declaration does not need a scanned signature.

2. "You can get a client to sign one authority at the start of the year and lodge off it." No. "They can't provide a bulk declaration," in the ATO's words, and s 388-65 requires a declaration for each document. Only Division 389 STP notifications have a standing route, capped at 12 months. And note the contrast with the EFT declaration — that one is standing, applying "to all income tax payments made by us, until a subsequent declaration is provided" (ATO QC 49409). Two declarations, two cadences, frequently confused with each other.

3. "An e-signature platform makes you compliant with the ATO." No product does. Compliance with s 388-65 is a function of what the declaration says, when it was made and who kept it. A platform can make those things easier to prove; it cannot make them true.

4. "The agent's electronic signature means signing the return in a signing tool." No. It means a credential the Commissioner has approved — myID, a machine credential via Relationship Authorisation Manager, or myGov. See the table above.

5. "A fax is an electronic lodgment." No, and the ATO says so explicitly. PS LA 2005/20 ¶21: forms received by facsimile "are not considered to be transmitted in an electronic format approved by the Commissioner. Instead, giving documents by facsimile transmission is considered to be a way of giving the form in paper form for the purposes of subsections 388-75(1) and (2)."

Where a signing workflow genuinely earns its place

Not because the law demands it — it does not — but because four of s 388-65's obligations are administrative problems that email handles badly.

• Specificity (Example 6). A declaration bound to a named, dated document cannot be ambiguous about which return it refers to. That is the single documented ATO failure mode, removed structurally.
• Sequencing (s 388-65(5)). The agent must not lodge before the client declares. A timestamped record proves the order. An email thread with client-side clock skew and a forwarded chain often cannot.
• Retrievability (ss 388-65(3)–(4)). Five years, produced to the Commissioner on request. The ATO expressly permits electronic storage "regardless of whether it was received by email or in paper form", and paper declarations may be scanned and stored electronically. A searchable archive is directly responsive to those two subsections; an inbox is not an archive.
• Per-lodgment discipline. No bulk declarations. A template sent per lodgment matches the rule; a signed engagement letter does not substitute for it.

And one thing to keep separate: the client is the one required to retain the declaration. The ATO recommends the agent keep a copy too, but the statutory obligation in s 388-65(3) is the client's. A practice that quietly becomes the only holder of its clients' declarations has taken on a job the Act did not give it — worth knowing, either way.

What this page does not cover

Stated plainly, because a page that pretends to cover everything is not worth citing.

• TFN declarations. A different regime with a different preferred path (the payee completing it in ATO online services), different retention rules keyed to the employment relationship, and the ATO's own instruction not to have that information emailed to you. Not covered here.
• Proof of identity and client verification. Whether you have verified who your client is is a Tax Practitioners Board obligation under the Code of Professional Conduct, entirely separate from the declaration. It has its own five-year clock, running from the end of the engagement rather than from the date of the declaration.
• AML/CTF customer due diligence. A third regime again, applying from 1 July 2026 only to practices providing a designated service. Not the same as either of the above.
• Whether any particular declaration you hold is adequate. We state what the section and the ATO guidance say. We do not review documents.
• State and Territory law. Everything on this page is Commonwealth.
• Case law. No decision has been read for this page. It states statutory text and published ATO guidance only.
• The content of NAT 73963. The ATO software developers guideline Signature requirements for approved electronic tax file number declarations, NAT 73963-03.2012, is still served and is still being quoted as current guidance in places. It is dated March 2012 and we have not read it, so we neither rely on it nor contradict it. We mention it only because you may encounter it.
• Anything outside Australia.

This page states what the legislation and the ATO's published guidance say, with the source for each statement. It is not legal or tax advice. The statutory text was read from Federal Register of Legislation authorised compilations on 8 September 2026 and the compilation numbers are named in the sources below; every ATO page quoted was retrieved the same day, with its QC number and last-updated date recorded. The ATO re-dates its pages frequently and legislation changes — check the current version before you rely on anything here. Whether a particular declaration in your files is adequate is a question for your own professional judgement.