"The ATO require that the data provided by ebay is true & accurate,

Prior to the introduction of shipping FVF, the data was based on sale value FVF.

It will now be provided on total (sale + shipping) FVF as it automatically includes ALL income stream."

I don't understand your rationale given that the ATO have not changed ebay reporting requirements save for the $ figure being reduced.

It would appear that the shipping component should always have been included in the income total whether ebay charged a FVF on that component or not is superflous as it was prior to the change and still is now considered income by the ATO.

If an ebay member sells a car on ebay then the FVF charged is $60. Whether the car sells for $1 or $100 000 is superflous except that the $100000 sale will mean ebay will inform the ATO because the reporting ceiling had been reached and surpassed.

So it would have been impossible for your statement to be true that prior to the changes ATO reported turnover was based on FVF charged on sale price only because  the Motors final value fee has no correlation to the actual income figure.

AFAIK ebay does not differentiate between private vehicle sellers and commercial vehicle sellers. (if they did there would be one big loophole in the ATO reporting procedure previously ....and that ebay compliance officer must not have valued his sig on the stat dec)

Many  sellers in the Motors section sell new grey import trikes and quads. If they sell 300 quads in a year @ 1000 each inc freight then their turnover is 300 000 and their FVF component is $18 000. How could the ATO (or ebay for that matter) extrapolate from the $18000 k FVF figure that the seller turned over 300k?

Throw a heap of 9.9% fvf for the spare parts sold on the same account and the yearly FVF figure has no correlation at all to the turnover......