Latest News

UPDATE - The Australian Taxation Office has delayed its planned ban on credit card payments until 30 June 2027. 

From 30 November 2026, taxpayers will no longer be able to pay their tax bills by credit card, following a decision by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

The change follows the Reserve Bank of Australia’s review of merchant card payment costs. The ATO said it would no longer accept credit cards rather than pass merchant fees on to the community.

Key takeaways:

• Credit card payments to the ATO will cease from 30 November 2026.
• Taxpayers with payment plans linked to a credit card will need to update their payment method before their next instalment after this date.
• The ATO is contacting taxpayers currently using credit card-linked payment arrangements.
• Alternative payment methods will remain available.
• Taxpayers experiencing financial hardship can seek support from the ATO or a registered tax professional.
• For those currently relying on credit cards to manage tax payments, the change means alternative arrangements will need to be made before the November deadline.

How Can You Pay the ATO?

While credit card payments are being removed, taxpayers will still have a number of options for paying their tax, including:

• Direct debit or debit card
• BPAY
• Electronic funds transfer (EFT)
• Third-party payment platforms, such as Pay.com, which accept credit card payments and then pay the ATO by bank transfer
• Other payment methods offered by the ATO

If you’re unsure what this change could mean for your business or cash flow, get in touch with us to talk through your options.

This case provides useful guidance for accountants, advisers and insolvency practitioners dealing with SMSF structures affected by bankruptcy. 

(Lu, in the matter of Lu [2026] FCA 841)

The Federal Court has confirmed that an undischarged bankrupt may, in appropriate circumstances, be permitted to continue acting as a director of the corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF). 

George Lu became bankrupt after personal guarantees supporting construction companies were called upon following their financial collapse. As an undischarged bankrupt, he was automatically disqualified from managing corporations and became a “disqualified person” under the SIS Act, preventing him from continuing as director of his family SMSF’s corporate trustee.

The key issue was whether the Court could grant relief under s 126J of the SIS Act. Justice Halley confirmed that the Court had jurisdiction to declare Mr Lu was not a disqualified person, despite the fund being regulated by the Commissioner of Taxation rather than APRA.

In exercising its discretion, the Court noted that the bankruptcy arose largely from liabilities under personal guarantees rather than fraud, dishonesty or misconduct. The Court also accepted that Mr Lu had cooperated with his bankruptcy trustees and that the SMSF was compliant, had no external creditors, employees or trading activities, and existed solely for the benefit of Mr Lu and his family.

The Court granted leave for Mr Lu to continue managing the corporate trustee, subject to a condition that the company act only as trustee of the SMSF. It also ordered that he not be treated as a disqualified person for the purposes of the SIS Act. 

Key takeaway: The decision reinforces that bankruptcy does not automatically prevent a person from remaining involved in the management of an SMSF. Where the circumstances of the bankruptcy are explainable, the fund remains compliant and public risk concerns are limited, the Court may grant relief to preserve the SMSF structure and avoid adverse regulatory and tax consequences.

With approximately $56 billion in uncollected undisputed debt, the ATO is continuing to ramp up its debt collection activities, using a range of tools to recover outstanding tax debts, including:

• Director Penalty Notices issued: 2025 - 84,000 compared to 26,702 in 2024. That is on average 230 per day!
• Garnishee Notices – directly claiming funds from business bank accounts
• Tax Debt Disclosure – reporting businesses to credit reference agencies
• Bankruptcy and winding up applications – for individuals and businesses with significant unpaid debts
• Departure Prohibition Orders – these prevent individuals with large debts from leaving Australia
• Pay Day Super

Financial Pressure on Businesses

Operating a business can be tough. There are pressures from all sides - increasing costs of living, employee and contractor issues, competition from larger businesses and the ongoing challenge of managing cash flow.

However, you don’t need to navigate financial difficulties alone.

The ATO’s message is clear: engagement is key.

If you cannot pay your tax bill, don’t ignore it. Lodge your tax returns as and when they fall due, and speak with the ATO or your accountant for advice.

Your business may be experiencing financial difficulty. This is often referred to as being “insolvent” - that is, being unable to pay your debts as and when they fall due.

If you believe your business is, or may be at risk of becoming, insolvent, it is important to seek specialist advice from a qualified insolvency accountant, liquidator or trustee.

The earlier you seek advice, the more options may be available to you to address the situation.

Gleeson (trustee) v Wittenberg, in the matter of Wittenberg (deceased) [2026] FCA 1324

The Federal Court has confirmed that money transferred from a deceased person’s bank account immediately after death may still be recovered as divisible property of the estate, even where the trustee cannot establish a void transaction under the usual clawback provisions.

What happened?

Corey Wittenberg died on 25 April 2022 owing more than $500,000 to solicitors. From the following day until 3 May 2022, via a series of electronic transfers, funds totalling $302,000 were moved from bank accounts in his sole name to an account in his wife’s sole name. The transfers carried the description “Money To Wife”. His estate was later ordered to be administered under Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and the trustee sought recovery of the funds.

What did the Court decide?

The trustee’s primary claim under Section 139ZQ Bankruptcy Act 1966 (the Act) failed; Sections 120 and 121 of the Act require a transfer “by” the relevant person. Because the transfers occurred after Mr Wittenberg’s death, and there was no evidence that he had authorised, planned, directed or contemplated them, or that they were made by a legal representative of his estate, the Court could not treat them as transfers “by” him.

However, the alternative claim under Section 30 of the Act succeeded. The funds were property held in Mr Wittenberg’s sole-name bank accounts at death and were therefore divisible property of the estate under Section 249 of the Act. 

Their origin did not change that result: although most of the money came from a $300,000 superannuation withdrawal made several months before death, once paid into his bank account it no longer retained the character of an interest in, or payment from, a regulated superannuation fund for the relevant exemptions.

Outcome

The Court declared that the $302,000 was divisible estate property and entered judgment against Mrs Wittenberg for that amount, together with interest from 3 May 2022 and costs.

Why it matters

The decision draws an important distinction between avoiding a transaction and recovering property that already belongs to an estate. A post-death transfer may fall outside Sections 120 and 121 of the Act because it was not made “by” the deceased, but that does not remove the underlying property from the pool available to creditors.

For trustees and advisers, the practical message is clear: identify the character and ownership of assets at the date of death, trace any immediate post-death movements, and consider the Court’s broad section 30 powers where a technical clawback pathway is unavailable.

For further details see link to full case here.