.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A partnership consisting of four family members – Mr B, Ms H, Ms Z and Mr D, anonymised under the pseudonym BHZD – attempted to get a 50 per cent GST shortfall penalty remitted for the development of a townhouse on anonymised land at “10 X Street”, into 10A X Street and 10B X Street.

In her 23 July 2026 decision at the Administrative Review Tribunal, general member Joanne Dunne decided to set aside the remission of the penalty assessment of a shortfall penalty on the unpaid GST.

Following the development of 10B X Street, Mr B and Ms H moved in, and it became their residence. The tribunal heard that under their initial tax agent Mr N, they “sought a refund of the withheld GST amount of $93,568 on the basis that the property was Mr B and Ms H’s main residence”.

However, in a 2 June 2021 letter, the Commissioner of Taxation advised BHZD that GST was payable on the sale of 10B X Street.

“I do not accept that Mr B took all the steps he should have to check the GST treatment of 10A X Street before simply telling Mr G (the second accountant) what to do in the September 2021 BAS,” Dunne said.

“Mr B’s knowledge of the GST outcome for 10B X Street in January/February 2021. Mr B’s knowledge that the facts at 10A X Street were exactly the same as those for 10B X Street, yet he said the GST treatment was different.

“Mr B said in evidence that he “couldn’t believe” the “instruction” to tell the conveyancer not to apply GST to the sale of 10A X Street and to send the notice to the purchaser saying as much. Mr B said in cross-examination that he “absolutely challenged” the sale of 10A X Street with Mr N.”

The general member said that she was puzzled by this evidence.

“I took [it] to be trying to convince me that the Applicant did not know about the audit or, more particularly, he did not have a copy of all of the correspondence, including the Commissioner’s 2 June 2021 letter,” Dunne said.

“Mr B accepted in cross-examination by Mr Lee that the different GST treatment of 10A X Street and 10B X Street was ‘surprising’. That is putting it mildly. It defies common sense, as the facts relating to the two properties were exactly the same. Mr B knew this. The Applicant knew from February 2021 that no refund had arisen in relation to 10B X Street. Why would 10A X Street have a different GST treatment?”

In late 2023, the commissioner issued a penalty assessment which imposed a penalty on BHZD at 50 per cent for recklessness, totalling $54,965.50.

Dunne said she had concluded that Mr B misunderstood the GST position entirely.

On the basis that the taxpayer was unable to demonstrate that all relevant taxation information was provided to Mr G, the general member ruled that the 50 per cent shortfall penalty is to be set aside and replaced by a 35 per cent penalty.

The case citation: BHZD and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 1376 (23 July 2026)

28 July 2026
Carlos Tse
accountantsdaily.com.au

.

The ATO is setting its sights on small business collectable debt following the Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO) recommendation that the Tax Office establish volume targets to collect the $65 billion tax shortfall from the SME market (for 2024–25), with the insolvency specialist saying that too many business owners are putting their “head in the sand” with their tax debts.

The insolvency specialist said that these business owners are putting their personal finances at risk by not seeking advice until the ATO takes punitive action against them.

Speaking to Accountants Daily, Jirsch Sutherland partner and insolvency specialist Malcolm Howell (pictured) said: “The ATO has a responsibility to recover outstanding tax debts and this audit is another warning shot over the bow for small businesses.”

Howell noted that many small businesses do not realise that they are losing money.

“No business [advice] ever seems to have a proper cash flow [system], and that's a real problem. They don't realise they're actually losing money on a daily basis.”

“These people were letting the tax debt accumulate in the background while they pay those creditors that they need to pay to keep the business going on a day-to-day basis, and it might be a bit of a COVID mentality that … they still think the ATO is going to be approachable and negotiable on the tax,” he added.

Following the reduction of tax collection activities during COVID-19, the ATO recommenced further actions in 2023–24. 

This included “garnishee actions, directions to pay, director penalty notices and disclosure of business tax debt actions,” ANAO said in its ATO Management of Small Business Collectable Debt 2024–25 report.

“[Some small business owners] bury their head in the sand, and they think that they can pay later, and later never comes,” Howell said.

He stressed that businesses often realise they are in trouble only after they receive a director penalty notice (DPN), and that just because the ATO has not sent any warnings yet does not mean you are in the clear with your tax debts. 

“That doesn't mean that you're not on the radar, that just means that you haven't heard from them yet, and they'll strike at any moment.”

“If you're not seeing your accountant who stays on top of your tax debts and other debts, if you're not realising that [your tax debt is] creeping up, that's what hits you between the eyes … one day, it's going to come out of the woodwork, and you'll get that DPN when you least expect it.”

16 July 2026
Carlos Tse
accountantsdaily.com.au

.

 If your business will be required to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML Act), you also need to consider your privacy obligations when handling personal information. Even if you operate a small business that would normally be exempt from privacy regulation, the new AML laws could change this.

Specifically, businesses that are reporting entities under the AML framework must comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act) when collecting, using, storing or disclosing personal information for AML purposes. This includes businesses with an annual turnover of less than $3 million.

Understanding how these two frameworks interact is important if your business performs customer due diligence, identity verification or transaction monitoring. This article explains how the AML and privacy frameworks interact and what small businesses need to do to comply with both.

When Does the Privacy Act Apply to Your Business?

The Privacy Act generally regulates how organisations handle personal information through the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs). While many small businesses are normally exempt, that exemption does not apply when you handle personal information to meet AML obligations. If your business is a reporting entity under the AML Act, you must comply with the Privacy Act for activities connected with those obligations.

Activities that may trigger privacy obligations include:

• collecting personal information for customer due diligence;
• storing information for AML record-keeping purposes;
• monitoring transactions and reporting suspicious matters; and
• conducting personnel due diligence for employees working in AML roles.

Collecting Personal Information for AML Compliance

To meet your AML obligations, your business will often need to collect personal information about customers, employees or other individuals. Under the APPs, you must limit the information you collect to what is reasonably necessary for your functions and activities. In the AML context, this typically means collecting information required for customer due diligence or risk assessments.

During onboarding, you will commonly collect:

• full name;
• date of birth;
• residential address; and
• identification document details.

However, the requirement to collect information for AML purposes does not give your business unlimited authority to gather any data you want. You should always consider whether the information you are collecting is genuinely necessary for compliance. Collecting excessive or irrelevant information may increase privacy risks and create unnecessary cybersecurity exposure.

Customer Notification

When your business collects personal information, you must notify individuals about how their information will be handled. This is typically done through a collection notice and your privacy policy.

A collection notice should explain:

• your organisation’s identity and contact details;
• why you are collecting the information;
• whether the collection is required by law;
• how the information may be used or disclosed; and
• the consequences if the information is not provided.

In the AML context, this may include explaining that information is collected to comply with the AML Act. However, you do not need to provide a collection notice where doing so would be inconsistent with your tipping off obligations under the AML Act.

Using and Disclosing Personal Information

Under the APPs, personal information should generally only be used or disclosed for the primary purpose for which it was collected. For AML activities, this may include:

• verifying a customer’s identity;
• assessing money laundering or terrorism financing risks; and
• meeting reporting obligations.

In some situations, your business may also be required to disclose personal information to regulators.

If you disclose personal information overseas (including to a third party service provider), you must generally take reasonable steps to ensure that the overseas recipient does not breach the APPs. However, exceptions apply where the disclosure is required or authorised by the AML Act.

Protecting Personal Information

Businesses that handle AML data often hold large volumes of sensitive personal information. This can make them attractive targets for cybercriminals. Under the APPs, you must take reasonable steps to protect personal information from misuse, interference, loss or unauthorised access.

Practical security measures include:

• using strong password policies and multi-factor authentication;
• restricting staff access to personal information;
• keeping software and systems updated;
• monitoring system activity with audit logs; and
• implementing a data breach response plan.

Retaining and Destroying Personal Information

Under the Privacy Act, businesses must take reasonable steps to destroy or de-identify personal information once it is no longer required. However, the AML Act requires certain records to be kept for specified periods to demonstrate compliance. This means your business must retain AML records when required by law. Once the retention period expires and there is no other reason to keep the data, you should securely delete or de-identify it.

Key Takeaways

If your business is a reporting entity under the AML regime, you must comply with the Privacy Act when handling personal information for those obligations. This applies even to small businesses that would otherwise be exempt from privacy regulation.

To comply with both frameworks, your business should only collect information that is reasonably necessary, provide clear privacy notices, protect personal data with appropriate security measures, and retain information only for as long as required. Taking these steps will help you meet your AML obligations while maintaining strong privacy practices and protecting the personal information entrusted to your business.

Legal Vision
Georgia MacKay
legalvision.com.au/

.

As an Australian resident for tax purposes, you’re generally entitled to the $18,200 tax-free threshold. This is income on all sources, including income from employers, taxable government payments, sole trader or contractor work under an Australian Business Number (ABN), gig work and some investment income.

If you have more than one payer or employer at a time, you can generally only claim the tax-free threshold from one payer. Usually, this is the payer who pays you the highest salary or wage.

However, a common mistake is claiming the tax-free threshold from every employer or payer. This means that at tax time, the combine tax withheld will likely be not enough for your combined income and you may receive a tax bill.

If you have more than one job and expect to earn more than $18,200 in total income, you should ask your other employers or payers to withhold tax at the higher “no tax-free threshold” rate.

If you drive for a ride-share platform, deliver food, earn gig economy income, rent out assets or run a side business, tax may not be automatically withheld from this income.

If you’re eligible, voluntary pay as you go (PAYG) instalments or tax prepayments can help you prepay your tax in manageable chunks throughout the year. If PAYG instalments are not available or suitable for you, set aside a portion of your income in advance to help meet your liabilities.

Extra care is needed if you have a study or training support loan (e.g. HECS/HELP) as compulsory repayments are based on your total repayment income. Tell each employer or payer about your loan so they withhold the right amounts.

.

According to the latest Global Economic Conditions Survey conducted by the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), a record number of chief financial officers and accountants reported increased costs in the second quarter of 2026. 

This underscores the intensifying challenge of managing profit margins amidst geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and elevated commodity prices.

Operating costs have reached unprecedented levels, with 76 per cent of accountants reporting increases that surpass the previous peak recorded after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The rise was even more pronounced among chief financial officers, where 83 per cent reported elevated expenses following a surge of over 20 percentage points from the prior quarter.

According to the report, the share of global accountants reporting higher operating expenses grew dramatically in the second quarter, reaching an unprecedented peak.

Researchers connected this growth to surging commodity and energy costs, in addition to supply chain bottlenecks arising from the conflict in the Middle East. 

Businesses in North America and Western Europe faced especially intense cost pressures, exacerbated by ongoing supply chain difficulties and increased tariffs.

As profit margins face growing strain, survey participants indicated that numerous organisations are shifting their focus toward cost reduction initiatives. Specifically, over 50 per cent of those surveyed in North America reported that their clients or companies were actively looking for methods to decrease expenses.

These insights demonstrated that controlling operational expenditures has emerged as a primary financial obstacle for companies operating within a highly volatile global market.

Moreover, inflation remained a major concern for finance professionals, with rising commodity prices and geopolitical uncertainty fuelling expectations of further price increases.

The survey found that 72 per cent of accountants and finance professionals expected inflation in their country to increase over the following three months. At the same time, 42 per cent expected interest rates to rise, reflecting growing expectations that central banks would continue tightening monetary policy.

The report noted that higher energy prices following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East had materially increased headline inflation across many economies.

Those inflationary pressures had already prompted policy responses, including an interest rate increase by the European Central Bank and a more hawkish outlook from the US Federal Reserve.

Researchers warned that developments in the Middle East would remain a key determinant of future inflation trends.

The report indicated that central banks could see inflation risks mitigated if the conflict progresses toward a resolution and oil prices stabilise near pre-war levels. 

However, the report cautioned that renewed conflict and another spike in energy prices could force central banks into more aggressive policy action.        

For businesses, persistent inflation was expected to remain a key challenge, increasing borrowing costs while adding further pressure to already elevated operating expenses. 

28 July 2026
Matthew Taylor
accountantsdaily.com.au

.

The ATO automatically pre-fills information from your employer, banks, government agencies and health funds into your tax return to help you get it right the first time, but if you wait until late July to lodge, most pre-fill information about your wages, bank interest, government payments and private health insurance details will be pre-filled.

Also, things to check while you wait for pre-fill to be complete:

• check your contact details and bank account information are up to date, so corrections after lodgement don’t delay your refund;
• collect expense receipts, logbooks and any private health insurance details so you have them ready to check against pre-filled information; and
• review the ATO’s occupation guides to confirm which deductions apply to your line of work;
• Check online that employment income details are correct.

Once pre-filled data is available, you still should cross-check the figures against your own records, particularly for bank interest, dividends and government payments.

If something looks wrong, contact the provider so corrections can flow through to the ATO.

If you realise after lodgement that something’s missing or incorrect, you can fix it through the with an amended return.

Acctweb

.

The cash flow positive position that businesses were in during the COVID-19 pandemic is a thing of the past, one expert has said.

According to the Australian National Audit Office’s 2024-25 ATO Management of Small Business Collectable Debt report, small businesses accounted for 66.1 per cent of all collectable debt.

“After reducing collection activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2023–24, the ATO recommenced the application of a range of firmer actions, including garnishee actions, directions to pay, director penalty notices and disclosure of business tax debt actions,” the report reads.

Speaking with Accountants Daily, Corson Fiske ANZ managing partner James Leslie-Watt (pictured) said businesses are falling behind in their ATO tax debt repayments partly because they are not cognisant of the Tax Office’s increased scrutiny off the back of the pandemic.

“A lot of people are still using the old excuse of COVID as a primary issue to the business,” Leslie-Watt said.

“There’s no real sort of guidance for a lot of directors when they first set up a business … they’re not really setting aside their capital to service their tax properly. They’re seeing the Tax Office as their bank essentially to fund the business.”

Accountants need to tell their clients that if they do nothing, they are going to face director penalty notices and garnishees, he said, and going above and beyond for clients to get them into a better position will be appreciated by clients.

He stressed that accountants must become strategic advisers rather than being an “end of year accountant looking backwards”, Leslie-Watt said.

“That’s the primary issue …  is that their current relationship with their accountant is more backwards, looking rather than forward-looking. They look at all the mistakes that happened over the course of the financial year, rather than having a set plan, looking forward and projecting for the financial year.”

Accountants must start looking at their client books and identifying who is behind on their tax debts for income tax, GST, PAYG and superannuation, and having a conversation about the lead-up into May next year on their overall tax debt position, he said.

“They need to look at having a set plan, going forward, to be able to address all the issues before … they end up on the receiving end of the stick, with tax debt collection from the ATO.”

28 July 2026
Carlos Tse
accountantsdaily.com.au

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Accountants are calling recent changes to the use of limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) disproportionate, saying they will not ease house prices and warning that they will harm SMSF holders, including younger Australians.

The change, aimed at restricting SMSF holders' ability to use LRBAs to purchase residential properties (which had been in place since 2007), has elicited numerous responses within the profession following its 23 June announcement, with support from the Greens. 

“The structure is conservative by design, and there is little tax advantage to remove. The ban will not move house prices or add to supply. What it will do is close off a legitimate asset class for the many SMSF members whose balances are not large enough to buy property outright,” said Stuart Sheary, head of technical at the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia.

“This is not unchecked activity — residential property is a legitimate part of a diversified retirement portfolio. Rather than applying targeted, calibrated settings, the Government has chosen a blanket approach. Removing residential SMSF borrowing does not eliminate demand for property investment within superannuation,” added Andrew Chepul, chief executive of ColCap Financial Group.

In a joint statement, industry practitioners, including Chepul, said “if the Government proceeds, a more balanced alternative would be to allow limited recourse borrowing for one residential property within an SMSF”, calling for a more “proportionate and targeted policy”.

“If the Government is determined to act, a more proportionate approach would be to allow borrowing for a single residential property within an SMSF. This would preserve diversification, maintain appropriate guardrails, support trustee choice, and better align with the Government’s stated objectives,” said Mario Rehayem, chief executive of Pepper Money. 

“This policy was introduced without consultation, detailed modelling or evidence of systemic risk. It should be reconsidered before it materially reduces Australians’ capacity to build sustainable retirement savings,” Rehayem said.

With many younger Australians actively engaging with their retirement savings, Bluestone chief executive Mark Jones said the policy risks undermining those taking responsibility for their financial future and destroying pathways to retirement security.

“Superannuation is a long-term investment. It is reasonable for members to take a long-term view and to hold growth assets, including direct property, over that horizon. Direct property has long been a part of that mix,” Jones said.

Previously, accountants have warned that these changes would crush trust in the nation’s retirement system, with some echoing the budget refrain of broken promises, others saying that the government is using a genuine vehicle for retirement savings as a bargaining chip, in a policy that is not evidence-based or in the public interest, but highly political.

26 June 2026
Carlos Tse
accountantsdaily.com.au