Talk:Tax file number

History needed
The initial section of this article is not up to encyclopedia standards. Some history needs to be given either in it or in its own section. For example, rather than saying "In the past", the section should give a precise date when the TFN was introduced and give a citation. Rather than saying "Now", it should give the precise date that 9 digit TFNs became standard and give a citation. Rather than saying "in the future", it should give the precise date that 10 digit TFNs are proposed to be introduced and give a citation.Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Worked algorithm
I'm reinstating the worked algorithm (for the second time).

This is consistent with the following pages which describe the equivalent numbers in other juristdictions, along with detailed descriptions of their algorithms or worked examples:
 * Social Security number describes valid numbers, the number has no check digit.
 * National Insurance number, the British equivalent, dedicates quite a bit of space to valid structures for the number
 * Canada's Social Insurance Number includes a worked example, I'm planning on simplifying our worked example to match theirs.
 * France's INSEE code includes a description of the validity check - simpler than the TFN's so less space required.
 * The Cadastro de Pessoas Físicas in Brazil even includes code snippets for a validation algorithm.
 * Ireland's Personal Public Service Number also contains a worked example.

In fact every number I've found which uses a check digit algorithm includes either a quick description of the algorithm (in simple cases), or a worked example (in complex ones).

I'll grant that the examples of pass and fail are unnecessary, so this time they're being left out in favour of a more terse version.

--Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a software programmer with access to the real TFN validation algorithm as provided to me by the ATO. I'm bound by a non-disclosure agreement not to divulge the algorithm but the one you are publishing here is incorrect and should be removed. While the one here might correctly validate some TFNs it is based on an incorrect set of weightings. Jschnur (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)