'I applied for Financial hardship release of debt for my current debt of $35,357.91. This debt is an accumulation of $23,806.47 2018/19 re-raise of non-pursuit - for which I had previously asked for waiver of debt, and 2019/2020 $11,399.45 HECS debt which I had also requested be placed on hold in 2018/2019 which was granted. > > I was not advised that I needed to start HECS payments during 2019/2020 or that it was no longer on hold due to financial hardship during 2018/2019.

9. In its Objection Decision dated 1 April 2021 the Respondent disallowed the Objection. Having regard to its internal guidelines for the provision of debt relief[12], the Respondent's position was:

(a) On the basis of a comparison of the Applicant's household income to household expenses, the Respondent accepted that the Applicant had no surplus income at that time to service her tax liability within a reasonable time frame. > > (b) On the basis of a comparison of the Applicant's assets (i.e. the 2016 motor vehicle) and her liabilities (including her credit card and vehicle financing debt, but not including her tax and Centrelink debts), the Respondent accepted that the Applicant's liabilities exceeded her assets at that time and therefore could not assist in repayment of her tax debt. > > (c) The Applicant's tax debt was not the sole cause of her position of financial hardship. The shortfall of her income over her expenses existed before considering repayment of her tax debt or Centrelink debt. Therefore a release of her tax debt would not alleviate any hardship she was experiencing as she would still have an income shortfall and other debts to meet. > > (d) The Applicant had had an above average income by community standards over the previous three years and it would not generally be acceptable for a taxpayer with a higher than average income to be relieved of their taxation liabilities in circumstances where other taxpayers had managed to meet their obligations. > > (e) The Applicant had applied funds from early access to her superannuation to debts and liabilities other than her tax debt. This action was within the Applicant's control and she had effectively made a choice not to address her tax debt.[13] > > (f) Similarly, although the Respondent acknowledged the personal circumstances faced by the Applicant, she had prioritised other expenses, including expenses relating to her children and her unwell mother, higher rent arising from moving to a larger house and paying for her sister's travel, over payment of her tax liabilities. > > (g) The increased expenses the Applicant was facing at the time as a consequence of COVID-19 related conditions were viewed as shorter term or temporary and her expenses were expected to be reduced in the future which would allow her to address her taxation debts via payment arrangements. > > (h) Various case authorities cited by the Applicant in support of her Objection could be distinguished from the Applicant's circumstances or were not consistent with the Applicant's position.

10. In mid-2021 the Applicant was also granted access to funds under the First Home Super Saver (FHSS) scheme.[14] The Applicant said that she wanted to purchase a home for herself and her family on the basis that mortgage repayments would be less than the rent she was paying, which would free up funds which could be used to repay her tax debt. However under the FHSS scheme where a person has an outstanding debt with the Respondent or another Commonwealth agency, their FHSS release amount may be offset against that debt. This is what happened to the Applicant.[15]

1. The Applicant originally lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 19 July 2021. In her application form she referred to a decision made on 15 July 2021 by a debt officer of the Respondent 'to decline a Waiver of Debt, Grace payment or negotiate the payment amount to be my First Home Super Saver funds recently taken to offset my commonwealth ATO debt.'[16] The Applicant requested that she be released from a tax debt of $35,000, referable to HECS/HELP and other tax liabilities, plus accruing general interest.
2. The Applicant sought the waiver or release of this debt under certain provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) relating to waivers of debt for administrative error and in special circumstances. The Applicant stated that the tax debt had been created through an administrative error of the Respondent in pre-filling data in her income tax return, in that the pre-filled data had not included fringe benefit amounts or income from all of her jobs. This error had been discovered several months after she lodged her return. The Applicant also referred to several special circumstances which arose in her case, including personal health concerns, a number of bereavements which occurred at the time she was completing her income tax return, difficult family circumstances and consequential financial stress.
3. The Applicant made her application to the Tribunal at a time when COVID-19 conditions existed, and she indicated that she and her family were experiencing employment and financial issues arising from the pandemic conditions.
4. The Tribunal's direction of 12 July 2023 noted that:

On 19 July 2021, the Applicant lodged an application for review of decision to the Tribunal of a decision made by the Respondent. It was unclear what decision the Applicant was seeking to have reviewed. On 11 July 2023, the Applicant confirmed that she was seeking review of the Respondent's objection decision dated 1 April 2021. > > On 11 July 2023, the Respondent advised the Tribunal that it considered that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision and that in the circumstances should the Applicant seek an extension of time to make her application for review he would not oppose such an extension being granted. > > The Tribunal agrees that it has jurisdiction to consider the application in relation to the objection decision made by the Respondent on 1 April 2021.

5. For reasons that are not clear, the Tribunal did not provide the parties with a notice under section 29 of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) until 12 March 2024.[17]
6. On 5 June 2024 the Applicant completed and provided to the Respondent a further 'Application for Release' form[18] seeking release of her tax debt and providing updated details of her financial position including information about her spouse's income. Her children were apparently no longer living with her but she was providing financial support to one of them. At that time she identified her source of income as coming from a superannuation income protection policy. She said that she expected not to have any tax debts in the future as she would be unemployed and not earning income. Her household was no longer paying rent but now had mortgage repayments.
7. The Tribunal issued directions dated 10 September 2024 requiring the Respondent to notify the Applicant in writing of any further financial and additional material the Respondent required, and for the Applicant to provide this material. Directions were also made for the filing of Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Respondent SFIC) by the Respondent, a statement in reply by the Applicant (Applicant Reply Statement) and evidence by both parties, as well as the provision of a hearing certificate by each party for a hearing to be listed between February and May 2025. By November 2024 the Respondent SFIC, Applicant Reply Statement and evidence had been filed with the Tribunal. A hearing certificate was received from the Respondent but not the Applicant.
8. On 24 June 2025[19] the Respondent, with the consent of the Applicant, wrote to the Tribunal seeking an update from the Tribunal on the proceeding and a case management directions hearing for the purposes of progressing the matter to a hearing.
9. The Applicant filed with the Tribunal a further Updated Financial Statement dated 1 July 2025. This stated her only income as $153.50 fortnightly of Centrelink benefits. It did not identify her spouse's income on the basis that it was 'not accessible' to her and controlled by her spouse. She also referred to a 'business account' which was not accessible to her because it belonged to her spouse. She did not identify any assets, stating that a Jeep Gladiator was 'acquired through employment necessity.' She referred to three home loans and payment of home insurance but did not identify any ownership interest in a residential property (or the property to which the home loans related). An amount attributed to 'food' in the July 2025 statement was the same as the amount attributed to 'groceries' in the June 2024 release request. Interest payments on credit card debt was stated to be referable to the Applicant's credit cards only.
10. Also in July 2025, the Applicant provided a document described as a 'Submission for Remission of General Interest Charge and Write-off of Debt' and addressed to both the Respondent and the Tribunal. In that document the Applicant sought 'the full remission of General Interest Charges (GIC) and the write-off or compromise of my reclassified HELP (HECS) debt, now treated as a tax liability.' She repeated a number of the matters raised in her previous communications with the Tribunal and Respondent relating to her medical and financial circumstances. She also stated that 'the debt originated as a HELP (HECS) student loan and was reclassified by the ATO as a tax debt.'
11. The Applicant also filed a document described as a hearing certificate which confirmed that the Applicant was ready to proceed to a final hearing and included a statement that an issue before the Tribunal was 'Whether the funds seized from my FHSS scheme ($16,655.33) and refunds already intercepted by the ATO constitute sufficient recovery.'
12. A directions hearing was listed for 18 July 2025, however the Applicant advised the Tribunal that she was unable to participate due to a personal matter. The Tribunal issued further directions by consent on 17 July 2025 providing for the Respondent to file an amended SFIC (Respondent Amended SFIC)[20] and the Applicant to file a statement in reply (Applicant Further Statement)[21], together with any further evidence the parties wished to rely upon.
13. The matter was also listed for a one-day hearing on 22 September 2025. The Respondent filed an Outline of Argument and the Applicant filed Reply Submissions on 8 September 2025.
14. In her Reply Submissions the Applicant said[22]:

If full release is not granted, the Applicant respectfully proposes alternatives: (a) revert the liability to a HELP debt, payable only if her income exceeds the statutory threshold; (b) remit the debt in part and cancel further accrual of GIC; or (c) suspend enforcement while she remains medically retired.

15. As mentioned above, on 9 September 2025 the Respondent wrote to the Tribunal advising that the parties had conferred and agreed that the matter could be determined 'on the papers' without a need for an oral hearing. Following a review of the file by the Member constituted to the hearing, the Tribunal advised the parties that it was satisfied that the matter could be determined on the papers under section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
16. The amount of the Applicant's outstanding tax debt[23] has increased (due to the imposition and ongoing accrual of general interest charge) and decreased (following the offsetting of the FHSS funds released in 2021) over the life of this proceeding. As at 8 September 2025 the Respondent calculated the amount of the outstanding taxation liabilities at $25,565.81.

1. At the outset it is noted that the Applicant's request for release from her tax debt and review of the Objection Decision are subject to the provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 1953). The provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) cited by the Applicant in her application to the Tribunal do not apply in relation to a release or remission of taxation liabilities.
2. The Respondent may release individuals from certain tax related liabilities under Division 340 of Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953.[24] Under Division 340 the Respondent may:

(a) Release an individual from a liability if the individual would suffer 'serious hardship' if required to satisfy the liability: Item 1 of the table in subsection 340-5(3). > > (b) Release the individual from the whole or part of a tax liability: subsection 340-5(1).

3. Although there is no separate definition of the term 'serious hardship' in the TAA 1953, courts and tribunals have considered its meaning[25] and said that:

(a) 'Serious hardship' is itself the test to be applied, although there may be discussion about which factors are relevant or not. This assessment is based on the individual circumstances of the person seeking release.[26] > > (b) Serious hardship looks to whether satisfying the full amount of the tax liability would involve the person in financial difficulty that, in all the circumstances, can be said to be 'serious'. However those circumstances need not be as extreme as 'destitution.'[27] > > (c) The type of hardship to be considered is financial hardship, not physical or social hardship.[28] > > (d) The question of whether a person would suffer serious hardship is to be framed at the moment when it is to be answered, rather than looking at whether the person would have suffered serious hardship if they had been required to meet the liability at a time in the past or whether they would suffer serious hardship if required to pay the debt at a future time.[29] Therefore the Tribunal can consider changes to the financial position of the person that have occurred since the original application for release or refusal decision, where their circumstances may have changed for the worse or for better.[30]

4. In determining whether payment of a tax liability would give rise to serious hardship, courts and tribunals have looked at factors including the assets and liabilities of the taxpayer, the income earning capacity of the taxpayer, whether the taxpayer's living or other expenses were excessive, and the ability of the taxpayer to meet reasonable living costs. The ability of a person to afford basic necessities (such as food, clothing, accommodation and medical requirements) is relevant. In this context reasonableness may be viewed by reference to 'community standards.'[31] There may be other matters which are relevant to the circumstances of a specific taxpayer.
5. The Respondent's guidance, PS LA 2011/17 adopts many of these concepts and states that the Respondent will consider:

serious hardship to exist where the payment of a tax liability would result in a person being left without the means to afford basics such as food, clothing, medical supplies, accommodation or reasonable education.

whether the consequences of paying the tax would be so burdensome that the person would be deprived of what are considered necessities according to normal community standards.

1. PS LA 2011/17 is not binding on the Tribunal, although consistency in decision-making supports the Tribunal taking this guidance into account.[32] The Tribunal observes that PS LA 2011/17 provides context to the reasons given by the Respondent in its Objection Decision, and in any event largely reflects and adopts propositions set out in relevant case authority.
2. Further, there must be a causal relationship between the payment of the tax liability and 'serious hardship.' This follows from the wording of Item 1 in the table in subsection 340-5(3) which says 'y_ou would suffer serious hardship if you were required to satisfy the liability._'[33]
3. Unless circumstances of serious hardship have been found, the discretion to release cannot be exercised. In this sense a two-stage approach is applied when determining whether a tax liability should be released. First, the decision-maker must decide whether payment of the liability would result in serious hardship. If such a finding is made, only then can the decision-maker consider whether the discretion to release should be exercised.[34]
4. Division 340 does not prescribe particular matters to be taken into account by a decision-maker in determining whether the discretion to release should be exercised. PS LA 2011/17 sets out examples of factors that the Respondent will take into account[35], but as noted above the Tribunal is not limited to or bound by those factors. However consistent with the broader approach outlined in PS LA 2011/17 the Tribunal should have regard to the facts of the case and the person's particular circumstances.[36]
5. If the Respondent refuses to release a person from the liability the person can make another application for release, or they may object against the decision as set out in Part IVC of the TAA 1953: see subsections 340-5(4), (7).
6. A taxpayer may also apply to the Tribunal for a review of an objection decision of the in accordance with Part IVC of the TAA 1953. Where an objection relates to a taxation decision other than an assessment, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the taxation decision should not have been made or should have been made differently: subparagraph 14ZZK(b)(ii).

1. In its Objection Decision the Respondent appeared to accept[37], although did not state expressly, that the Applicant was experiencing financial hardship at the time of her request for release of her debt. However, the Respondent's reasons cast doubt on whether there was the necessary causal relationship between the payment of the tax liability and the Applicant's hardship. Further, the Respondent did not believe that the Applicant's circumstances were such that the discretion to release should be exercised.
2. In the Respondent Amended SFIC, the Respondent contended that:

(a) The Applicant did not appear to be experiencing serious hardship, at least in relation to the 2024 and 2025 financial years. > > (b) The Applicant had not provided full financial disclosure of her household income, expenses, assets and liabilities. > > (c) It was difficult to properly assess the Applicant's current or more recent household income and expenses due to what the Respondent believed were deficiencies in the information provided by the Applicant. The income of the Applicant and her spouse as disclosed in their respective income tax returns and an updated financial statement provided by the Applicant in June 2024 suggested that there was a surplus of income over expenses of approximately $750 per week. Bank statements provided by the Applicant suggested expenditure on 'discretionary items' of over $11,000 in a six month period. > > (d) It was also difficult to ascertain the Applicant's current asset position based on the information provided for the purposes of this Tribunal proceeding, however the Respondent said that it was more likely than not that the Applicant was in an asset positive position. The Respondent queried the Applicant's estimate of the market value of her house and the accuracy of information provided by the Applicant relating to the balance of loans owing by her. > > (e) If the Applicant was in a position of financial hardship the release of her tax liability would not alleviate her hardship because her financial position, at least as at June 2024, included a number of other debt obligations including home loans, personal loans and credit cards. > > (f) Even if it was found that the Applicant would suffer serious hardship if required to pay her tax liability, there were circumstances such that it was not appropriate for the discretion to release to be exercised. Since the Applicant made her initial request for a release of her tax debt in July 2021, the Applicant's 'household' had acquired a residential property (subject to multiple mortgages) and two 'Jeep' vehicles (also subject to finance), which were not insubstantial purchases and which also indicated a financial capacity to be accepted for loan finance. An analysis of bank statements provided by the Applicant[38] indicated not insubstantial discretionary expenditure on fast food and dining out, liquor, gambling, holidays and gym fees. Further, the Applicant had used available funds to discharge debts owing to other parties, such as financial institutions, rather than making any payments towards her tax liabilities.[39] The Respondent's position was that the Applicant had a poor compliance history and had failed to plan for future tax liabilities.

3. The Respondent also drew the Tribunal's attention to the Applicant and her spouse being directors of a company registered in July 2023[40] (the Company). The Respondent said that the Applicant had not provided any information about the financial circumstances of the Company or whether the Applicant or her spouse received any income from the Company.
4. In the materials filed with the Tribunal, the Applicant contended that she has experienced, and continues to experience, serious hardship and that the discretion to release should be exercised in her circumstances. In particular, she said that:

(a) Her current personal income is derived solely from a Centrelink benefit of $153.50 per fortnight. Her employment ceased in May 2024 when she was medically retired following the diagnosis of a mental health condition and she is unable to return to paid employment. > > (b) The Respondent's reliance on household income and historic income protection payments does not reflect her present circumstances and actual capacity. She does not have access to her spouse's income. Household bills are paid from his accounts which she cannot access. Without her spouse's financial contribution she could not meet her basic housing, transport and medical costs. Any diversion of funds would result in a loss to her of accommodation, transport or essential treatment. She would be homeless if she did not pay her home loan, would have her car repossessed if she did pay the related loans and would have bad credit if she did not meet her credit card repayments. > > (c) Failure to release her from her tax liability may place her at risk of losing her home and essential transport, and compromise her medical treatment. > > (d) She disagreed with a valuation estimate of her home suggested by the Respondent, and this also did not reflect her equity in that property as she had three mortgages and property sale costs. > > (e) Both of the 'Jeep' vehicles are owned and financed by her spouse.[41] > > (f) The asset acquisitions identified by the Respondent occurred prior to her medical incapacity. Loans identified were also approved prior to her medical incapacity, based on the household income at that time. > > (g) The 'discretionary spending' estimate given by the Respondent overstated her spending. Many of the transactions identified by the Respondent were personal or work-related expenses of her spouse (and not her). Fast food purchases were most likely made by her spouse at work. The holiday was paid for by her children. Alcohol purchases were rare and her spouse can no longer drink due to his diabetes. In relation to gambling transactions she said that purchases of lotto tickets were 'minimal and occasional' and she did not engage in other types of gambling. The gym membership expense was part of her health treatment plan and was also for her husband due to his diabetes. > > (h) She has significant ongoing medical costs due to her health condition. > > (i) The Company is solely managed and financially controlled by her spouse and she is not in receipt of any income, dividends or benefits from the Company. > > (j) She disputed the Respondent's assertion that she had not provided relevant financial information.

5. The Applicant noted that the FHSS funds and amounts of income tax refunds from subsequent years had been applied by the Respondent against her tax liabilities.
6. The Applicant said that she had also made an offer to pay $5,000 in satisfaction of her tax liabilities, which the Respondent has not accepted. In the alternative to releasing her from the entirety of her tax debt, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to partially release the debt, reducing the debt to $5,000 which she said she would then pay to the Respondent.
7. In her Applicant Reply Statement the Applicant referred to the Respondent's power to remit administrative penalties. As no administrative penalties have been imposed on the Applicant the Tribunal does not need to address this matter.

1. The Applicant has suggested that her original HECS/HELP debt was 'reclassified' administratively by the Respondent into a tax liability.[42] As an alternative to the remission of the tax debt she has proposed that the tax liability be reverted to a HELP debt which is only payable if her income subsequently exceeds the statutory threshold for repayment of such debts. It is unlikely that her income will exceed the statutory threshold while it consists solely of Centrelink benefits.
2. It is not correct to say that the HECS/HELP debt was reclassified or converted, administratively or otherwise, by the Respondent or any other entity, into a tax liability. Part 4-15 of Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953 provides for the collection and recovery of 'tax-related liabilities' and other amounts by the Respondent. Subdivision 154-D of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (HESA) provides for the application of tax legislation to debts arising in relation to student support loans. In particular Part 4-15 of Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953 applies to the compulsory repayment amount[43] of a person under the HESA as if it were income tax assessed to be payable by a taxpayer: paragraph 154-60(b).[44]
3. The designation of the Applicant's HECS/HELP debt as a part of her tax liabilities therefore arises under the combined operation of the HESA and taxation legislation rather than from any administrative or discretionary action by the Respondent which it could reverse.

Would the Applicant suffer serious hardship if required to satisfy the tax liability?

1. Turning to the issue of whether the Applicant should be released from all or part of her tax debt, the threshold question under Division 340 is whether the Applicant would suffer 'serious hardship' if required to satisfy her tax liability. The Tribunal will address the issue of serious hardship based on the Applicant's current position, although evidence and submissions about her historical circumstances may be relevant to a consideration of that position.
2. Although the Applicant disputes the Respondent's statement that she has not provided all relevant or current financial information, the Tribunal believes that there are several aspects of the Applicant's financial position which are not supported by appropriate evidence, or where statements she has made about her financial circumstances are not aligned with documentary evidence.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been diagnosed with a significant mental health condition[45], that her previous employment ceased, that she is unable to return to paid employment and that she receives Centrelink benefits. In this context the Tribunal also agrees with the Applicant that her historical wages from her previous employer and/or payments from income protection insurance policies are not indicative of her current or future income earning capacity.
4. As a consequence of her health circumstances the Tribunal therefore also accepts that the Applicant will have to meet increased and ongoing medical costs related to her condition. Although the Medical Report provided by the Applicant did not specifically reference exercise as part of her treatment plan, the Tribunal is willing to accept the Applicant's statement that the relatively modest amount of her monthly gym membership is required for her health and wellbeing.
5. However the Tribunal has identified inconsistencies between statements made in the Applicant's Updated Financial Statement of 1 July 2025, her responses to the Respondent SFIC and Respondent Amended SFIC, her written submissions and the other material she has filed, or the Tribunal believes that there is information that is lacking. In particular the following matters are unclear:

(a) In her Updated Financial Statement the Applicant refers to three home loans, three personal loans and a 'Jeep Loan.' The aggregate monthly payments on these loans comprise the substantial portion of her outgoings, which in turn contribute substantially to the deficit of income over expenses upon which she relies. Some bank statements from 2023 and 2024[46] have been provided by the Applicant which corroborate the existence of those loans, confirm that some are in the name of the Applicant solely (and others in the name of the Applicant and her spouse) and indicate the balance and repayment amounts of those loans.[47] However there are inconsistencies in the Applicant's evidence relating to her obligations for repayments under these loans and her interest in the assets to which they relate. > > (b) In her Applicant Further Statement of 11 August 2025, the Applicant said that the Jeep Gladiator was 'owned and financed by her spouse.' This appears to be inconsistent with the further release application she made in June 2024 where she said that she was the owner of the Jeep Gladiator with a financing arrangement entered into in 2021, and her Updated Financial Statement of 1 July 2025 and Applicant Reply Statement of November 2024 where she referred to a Jeep Gladiator having been 'acquired through employment' due to a reliable vehicle being required. [48] In her Updated Financial Statement she identifies significant expenses of $1,600 a month for a 'Jeep Loan' but did not confirm whether she owned a Jeep vehicle, (and if not, why she would be responsible for loan repayments on a vehicle). > > (c) In the Updated Financial Statement, the Applicant refers to the home loans in the context of her recurring 'expenses' but does not identify any ownership interest in a residential property to which those home loans relate as an 'asset'. The Tribunal appreciates that the Applicant disputes the Respondent's position on the valuation of the house in which she resides and that she believes there is only minimal or even negative equity in that property, however the Tribunal is unable to form a view on the Applicant's net asset position in circumstances where information is absent about the residential property to which the mortgage repayments relate. It is not clear to the Tribunal why the Applicant has identified what appears to be the entirety of mortgage repayments on the home loans as her expenses in circumstances where her spouse is a co-borrower.[49] The Tribunal cannot simply accept the Applicant's assertions as to the value of the house without further information.[50] The Tribunal does not necessarily accept the Respondent's estimated valuation based on the CoreLogic data[51] but in the absence of evidence of a valuation and in the context of the Applicant bearing the burden of proving the Respondent's Objection Decision was incorrect, the Tribunal can only find that the Applicant's income or asset position arising from an interest in a residential property is unclear. > > (d) The Applicant challenged the Respondent's estimate of her 'discretionary spending.' She said that many of the transactions identified by the Respondent from bank statements provided were personal or work-related expenses of her spouse (and not her) but no further information or explanation was provided to the Respondent or Tribunal as to which transactions were made by her and which belonged to her spouse.[52] > > (e) The Applicant also stated that household bills are paid from accounts she cannot access, presumably those of her spouse, and that the Tribunal should have regard to her personal income only and not 'household' income. Nevertheless the Applicant has identified amounts (such as food, utilities and home insurance) in her Updated Financial Statement which appear to be household expenditure. The Applicant has not indicated which household expenses or proportion of expenses might be met by her spouse and which are her responsibility.[53] Therefore it is not clear to the Tribunal whether the Applicant's description of her current financial position reflects a comparison of only her personal income (of $307 per month) against expenses totalling some thousands of dollars but which include expenses met by others or from other sources. > > (f) It is not in dispute that the Applicant is a director and shareholder of the Company.[54] She has stated that she does not receive any financial benefits from the Company although no evidence about the financial position or dealings of the Company was provided to the Tribunal to corroborate this. She also said that 'business accounts' are not accessible to her and that the Company is solely managed and financially controlled by her spouse. The Tribunal accepts that it would not be appropriate for the Applicant to use Company funds to meet personal expenses, however it is not clear why the Applicant as a director (and member) is unable to provide financial information for the Company which would confirm whether amounts such as dividends or directors fees had been paid or loans to directors had been made.

6. The Applicant described herself as dependent on her spouse's income, but she cannot access that income. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may have no legal entitlement to her spouse's income or to assets held by her spouse. The Tribunal is reluctant to assume or suggest that a person must rely on their spouse to support them financially, however the circumstances of the Applicant's spouse are relevant in the context of her contention that if she is not released from her tax liabilities she risks being left 'without essential housing.' The Applicant told the Tribunal that household bills are being met from accounts she cannot access, which the Tribunal understands are those of her spouse. However it is apparent that household bills are being paid. She is residing in a home where she has previously indicated that mortgage payments were being met through 'household' income[55], which the Tribunal takes to include the income of her spouse. The Applicant has not suggested that she is separated from her spouse. It is therefore not clear to the Tribunal that being required to meet her tax liability would result in her losing her housing.
7. In relation to alcohol and gambling purchases, the Tribunal believes that the amounts of the recent transactions identified by the Respondent are not substantial and therefore the Tribunal has not placed significant weight on these transactions.
8. In summary, despite the volume of materials filed since the initial application to the Tribunal in 2021, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied as to the Applicant's current or recent financial position. Mindful of the Applicant being self-represented and facing significant health challenges, the Tribunal has sought not to be too prescriptive as to the type of evidence that might be provided in support of the Applicant's case. The Tribunal has also not placed significant weight on evidence put by the Respondent in relation to amounts which were insubstantial. The Tribunal does not necessarily accept the Respondent's suggestion that the Applicant has a surplus of income. However there remain several apparent inconsistencies within the information provided by the Applicant and there is an absence of any evidence in support of other assertions made by the Applicant about her financial position.
9. A further issue is whether the release of the tax liabilities would address any hardship of the Applicant. The Applicant said that the impact of a release of the tax debt would be to 'immediately alleviate hardship by removing the unmanageable repayment demand and preventing further accrual of GIC.' However even if the information provided by the Applicant about her financial circumstances were to be accepted in full, the Tribunal does not believe that her financial hardship would be remedied by the release of her tax debt. That is because even absent the tax debt she would have a significant deficit of income compared to outgoings and based on her statements about the numerous loans she has, any assets in which she has an interest would still be subject to the same degree of financing.
10. The Respondent queried how the Applicant (or the Applicant's household) was able to acquire further assets, subject to finance, since making her application to the Tribunal. The Applicant stated that the loans were approved based on 'combined household income' at the time the loans were taken out. It is obviously a matter for the relevant financial institutions to determine and apply their lending criteria, but the Tribunal is unclear as to how a person in the financial circumstances described by the Applicant in her October 2020 Objection or in her July 2021 application for review to the Tribunal was able to get a substantial loan (albeit as a co-borrower) in August 2021 for the purchase of a residential property and possibly buy a vehicle in 2021, also subject to finance in the Applicant's name.[56] These acquisitions and loans were apparently undertaken while she was still pressing her application for release of her tax debt because of serious hardship. The documentation provided by the Applicant suggests that the loans in her name, or taken out together with her spouse, have balances owing of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The payment of her tax debt will not be the driver of serious hardship in this context.
11. The Tribunal must therefore find that the Applicant has not satisfied her burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that she would suffer serious hardship if required to satisfy her tax liability.

Should the discretion to release all or part of the tax liability be exercised?

1. As noted above, an individual can only be released from the whole or part of a tax liability where it has been determined that they would suffer serious hardship if required to satisfy the liability: see the 'Condition' in Item 1 of the table in subsection 340-5(3). In this case the Tribunal has not made such a determination and therefore it is not open to the Tribunal to exercise the discretion to remit.
2. Both parties provided submissions to the Tribunal about the factors that the Tribunal should take into account if it had been required to consider the exercise of the discretion. It is not necessary to address the discretion, however the Tribunal does wish to make clear that its decision in this matter should not be viewed as suggesting that the Applicant has not faced, and does not continue to face, significant health and other personal challenges. The Tribunal is mindful of the Applicant's explanation that the processes relating to her tax debt have caused her distress and acknowledges her view that she does not believe that having to pay this debt in her circumstances is fair. However the Tribunal is obliged to apply the statutory test, having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal has explained that it is not satisfied with the information provided by the Applicant in relation to aspects of her financial position, as well as the additional borrowings undertaken since her original request for release of her tax liability and the arrangements she has made to address her debts. These matters would also have counted against the exercise of the discretion.

1. The Applicant filed a 'Submission for Remission of General Interest Charge and Write-off of Debt' in July 2025. This submission was addressed to both the Tribunal and the Respondent. The imposition of GIC and any refusal by the Respondent to remit GIC are not decisions which are reviewable by the Tribunal.[57] Therefore to the extent that the Applicant was asking the Tribunal to direct the Respondent to remit any GIC arising in relation to her tax liability or to stop the accrual of GIC, the Tribunal is unable to make such orders. A taxpayer may ask the Respondent to remit amounts of GIC and if dissatisfied with the Respondent's decision, there may be rights of review with the Federal Court.
2. The Applicant also said that an issue for the Tribunal to consider was whether the funds released under the FHSS scheme and amounts of tax refunds which were applied by the Respondent to the Applicant's tax liabilities constituted sufficient recovery of that debt. These amounts have been taken into account by the Respondent in its submissions to the Tribunal on the calculation of outstanding debt. The Tribunal has addressed above the question of whether the Applicant can or should be released from the outstanding debt. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant would suffer serious hardship if required to satisfy that remaining debt and therefore it was not open to the Tribunal to consider the discretion to remit. The application of FHSS and tax refund amounts are not otherwise a separate issue for consideration. That application occurred by operation of law and had the Tribunal been required to consider the discretion, it would not have weighed in favour of remitting the debt.
3. As noted at paragraph 50 above, the Tribunal is unable to make orders for the Applicant's tax liabilities to 'revert' to a HECS/HELP loan repayable at a future date.
4. The Tribunal is unable to make an order requiring the Respondent to suspend enforcement or recovery of the Applicant's tax liabilities. The general rule is that the making of an application to the Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision does not prevent the taking of action to implement the decision: subsection 32(1). In some circumstances[58] the Tribunal may make an order staying the implementation of a reviewable decision pending finalisation of the Tribunal's review. In the present circumstances the Tribunal has made a decision to affirm the Objection Decision.

1. The Applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that she would suffer 'serious hardship' in the sense required by Division 340 of Schedule 1 to the TAA 1953, if she were required to satisfy the tax liability. Therefore, the Tribunal is unable to exercise the discretion under section 340-5 to release the Applicant from the whole or part of the liability. The Tribunal affirms the Respondent's Objection Decision of 1 April 2021.

[1] At the time of making her application the Applicant's surname was Miller. During the course of the proceeding she advised the Tribunal that her surname and other contact details had changed.

[2] Per Directions of Member D Mitchell dated 12 July 2023.

[3] Where both parties have consented to a proceeding being determined without a hearing and it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, the Tribunal may make its decision without holding a hearing: section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

[4] T13. This included a Centrelink debt of approximately $12,000 as at May 2019. References to 'T Documents' are to the documents filed by the Respondent in accordance with section 14ZZF of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).

[5] T14, T15. Applications for deferral of HECS/HELP loan repayments must be made within 2 years of the income year to which they relate. The Respondent determined that the Applicant was therefore out of time to request deferral for the 2017 and prior years.

[6] The Respondent issued multiple amended assessments for these years in 2019 and 2020, see T5, T7 to T11.

[7] The Applicant indicated that her children contributed some amounts to household expenses.

[8] There was also a bank account with a nominal amount of cash.

[10] The Applicant also sought to lodge a complaint in her objection about the manner in which the Respondent's officer had spoken to her.

[11] The Applicant also requested an extension of time to lodge her objection on the basis of her understanding that there was a decision dated 1 October 2020. As the Refusal Decision was made on 29 October 2020, an extension of time was not necessary. She also said that she had sent an objection to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal who advised that she needed to lodge an objection with the Respondent first.

[12] As set out in Law Administration Practice Statement PS LA 2011/17 Debt relief, waiver and write off.

[13] The Respondent cited the observations of Wilcox J in Corlette v Mackenzie [1996] FCA 1482 ('Corlette') at paragraph [5].

[15] Of the $18,302.33 released to the Applicant from her superannuation fund, $16,655.33 was applied by way of offset against her existing tax debt. An amount of $1,647 was withheld as (further) tax payable in relation to the released amount. The Respondent advised the Applicant of the offset by letter dated 23 September 2021: ST6.

[16] The letter formally advising the Applicant of the offset of FHSS funds against her tax debt was dated September 2021, although it appears that the Applicant was advised verbally that this would happen prior to the letter being sent.

[17] The Respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 6 March 2024 seeking an update on the provision of a section 29 notice as this was required for the Respondent to lodge its Tribunal documents in accordance with section 14ZZF of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), which it did on 8 April 2024.

[19] The reason for the elapse of time since the September 2024 directions is not clear.

[20] Filed on 5 August 2025, together with Supplementary T Documents.

[21] Filed on 11 August 2025, together with additional items of evidence.

[22] Paragraph 20 of Applicant's Reply Submissions.

[23] This included income tax liabilities, Medicare levy, shortfall interest charge and general interest charge.

[24] The Respondent does not dispute that the amount referable to the HECS/HELP debt is eligible for release under Division 340.

[25] Earlier case law refers to section 265 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth).

[26] Commissioner of Taxation v A Taxpayer [2006] FCA 888 at [16] (A Taxpayer) per Stone J.

[27] Powell v Evreniades and Others [1989] FCA 114 ('Powell') at [19] to [20] per Hill J, A Taxpayer at [16] to [17], [55] per Stone J.

[28] Powell at [19] per Hill J, Doery and Commissioner of Taxation [2024] AATA 1493 (Doery) at [43].

[29] Re Rasmussen and Commissioner of Taxation [2013] AATA 746 (Re Rasmussen) at [53] per Deputy President Forgie.

[30] Powell at [58] per Hill J, Re Rasmussen at [53],

[31] The concept of 'community standards' was considered in Re Rasmussen at [3] and [46] to [50] per DP Forgie, including by reference to A Taxpayer.

[32] Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50 at [54], Corlette v Mackenzie [1995] FCA 1512, Re Rasmussen at [11] to [13] and [56].

[33] Re Rasmussen at [3] and [40].

[34] Powell at [32] and [36], Doery [34].

[36] See the approach of Senior Member Benk in Doery and also the comments of Wilcox J in the Full Court in Corlette v Mackenzie [1996] FCA 1482 suggesting it was relevant to consider whether circumstances were within or beyond the control of the taxpayer.

[37] The Respondent stated that the Applicant met the criteria for the 'income/outgoings' and 'asset/liabilities' tests described in PS LA 2011/17.

[38] ST8. These bank statements related to a credit card in the sole name of the Applicant (#6089) across an eight month period from December 2023 to August 2024, with statements for a couple of months missing; three home loans in the sole name of the Applicant (#3744, #1157, #0700) for the period 1 January to 30 June 2024; a personal loan in the sole name of the Applicant (#9061) for the period 1 January to 30 June 2024; two savings or transaction accounts in the joint names of the Applicant and her spouse (#8410. #6707) across periods from December 2023 to June 2024. Details of a further finance lease in the name of the Applicant were provided at ST9.

[39] It is noted that the funds disbursed under the FHSS were automatically transferred to her tax liabilities by law.

[40] ST3 contains an ASIC search relating to the Company.

[41] As discussed further below, the ownership of and financial obligations relating to these vehicles are unclear.

[42] See paragraph 4 of the Applicant's Further Statement of 11 August 2025, paragraphs 17 and 20 of the Applicant's Reply Submissions of 8 September 2025 and 'Tribunal Key Points' document provided by Applicant.

[43] This is the amount required to be paid under an accumulated HELP debt: see definition in Schedule 1 to the HESA.

[44] Other provisions of the HESA also apply PAYG withholding rules and tax administrative penalty rules to HECS/HELP amounts arising under the HESA as if parts of the HESA were income tax laws or repayment amounts were income tax: see sections 154-65, 154-70 of the HESA.

[45] See the Medical Report provided by the Applicant dated 21 January 2024.

[47] The Respondent referred to the fact that copies of loan agreements had not been provided. The Tribunal would not necessarily require full loan documentation to substantiate the existence, terms and amount of such loans.

[48] The 2016 Jeep Wrangler disclosed in the Applicant's original application for release in October 2020 appears to have been disposed of since that date, but the circumstances of the disposal and the financing on that vehicle were not indicated.

[49] The bank statements at ST8 relating to the home loans refer to the Applicant and her spouse as the relevant 'borrowers.' The 'home loans' expenses set out in her Updated Financial Statement are consistent with the entirety of the monthly loan repayments set out in those statements.

[50] As set out in her further release application of June 2024 at ST2.

[52] The Applicant said in her Applicant's Reply Statement of 6 November 2024 that most café or fast food purchases were made by her spouse but no further detail or supporting evidence was provided. The statements at ST8 for the 'Smart Access' bank account identify fast food and alcohol purchases, however that account is in the joint name of the Applicant and her spouse.

[53] The Applicant's Reply Statement of 6 November 2024 suggested some of the monthly medication expenses were those of her spouse who had just been diagnosed with diabetes.

[55] This was indicated in the further application for release made in June 2024. However in the Updated Financial Statement dated July 2025 the Applicant did not include any reference to her spouse's income or to an ownership interest in a residential property, but included the amount of home loan repayments as her expense.

[56] See details provided in further Application for Release in ST7. Further borrowings in 2021 in the name of the Applicant with three lenders totalling approximately $190,000 were also identified in that document.

[57] See sections 12 and 17 of the ART Act, together with sections 14ZZA, 14ZQ and 14ZY of the TAA 1953 which indicate the types of taxation decisions which the Tribunal may review, including reviewable objection decisions. Part IIA of the TAA 1953 which deals with GIC does not provide for rights of objection in relation to the imposition of or refusal to remit GIC.

[58] There are limits on the ability of the Tribunal to order a stay of the implementation or enforcement of reviewable taxation objection decisions, unless they relate to a small business taxation assessment decision: see sections 14ZZA, 14ZZB and 14ZZH of the TAA 1953.