Sections 3 and 108 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 apply.

1. The Applicant then sought a review of the decision by the Tribunal on 6 May 2025.
2. The issue before the Tribunal in this matter is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the above decision.
3. Section 87 of the Administration Act provides that if a debt is owed by a person under section 82 and is recoverable by means of application of an income tax refund payable to the person, the Commissioner of Taxation may apply the whole or part of the refund to the debt. The amount of the refund and the amount of the debt are then reduced accordingly.
4. Subsections 111(1) and (1A) of the Administration Act provide that a review may be made to the Tribunal in the following circumstances:

(1) If the decision reviewer has affirmed, varied or set aside a decision under Subdivision B of Division 1, application may be made to the ART for review (ART review) of the decision as affirmed or varied or, if it has been set aside and another decision substituted, the decision so substituted.

(b) another agency head himself or herself in the exercise of a delegated power; or

(c) the Chief Executive Centrelink in the exercise of a delegated power; or

(d) the Chief Executive Medicare in the exercise of a delegated power;

application may be made to the ART for review (also ART review) of the decision.

1. The Tribunal finds that the decision is not a decision made in accordance with subsection 111(1) as it is not a decision that was affirmed, varied or set aside by a decision reviewer. It was not otherwise a decision made by one of the persons specified in subsection 111(1A). The decision is not reviewable in the Social Security jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. As to whether the decision is otherwise reviewable by the Tribunal, the Tribunal notes that in McNair and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) 2025 ARTA 2188, Deputy President Dordevic held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review a decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation, on the basis that it was not reviewable in the Social Security jurisdiction for the same reasons as those set out above and was not reviewable in the Taxation jurisdiction for the same reasons.
3. On 11 November 2025, the Tribunal made Orders for Submissions to the Applicant, asking the Applicant provide submissions in relation to the following:

(i) The basis on which the Applicant states the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation; and

(ii) Having regard to the findings of the Tribunal in McNair, why the matter should not be dismissed under section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act).

1. The Applicant provided written submissions in response to these issues, in which he submitted that Mc Nair is distinguishable from his case in "fact, process, and consequence". The Applicant submitted that he had experienced "a fundamental breach of procedural fairness that rendered my appeal rights void and constitutes a jurisdictionally relevant irregularity distinct from the circumstances in McNair".
2. The Applicant referred to delayed notification of the authorised review officer's decision, which he submits "voided" his appeal rights; the offsetting of his income tax refund having been conducted without notice and at a time he had been locked out of his Centrelink account; the differences between his case and McNair which, he submits, creases a "procedural exception to the jurisdictional bar relied upon in McNair"; and a failure to notify a party of a review outcome being a denial of natural justice.
3. The Applicant submitted that he was seeking the following remedies by the Tribunal:

(i) Decline to dismiss the application under section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024;

(ii) Recognise that the circumstances render the offsetting decision procedurally flawed and not merely merits-immune;

(iii) Accept that my application falls outside the scope of McNair due to lack of timely notice, platform accessibility, and clear procedural defects.

Alternatively, if jurisdiction is ultimately declined, I request the Tribunal issue a formal finding of procedural failure and refer the matter to the Administrative Review Council under the systemic issues powers available.

1. The Tribunal notes that, despite the Applicant's submissions that his appeal rights have been voided, he appears to be seeking that the Tribunal proceed to consider and determine the substantive matter before it. The Applicant did not respond, in his written submissions, to the substance of the issue being put to him, namely, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the substantive decision, being to intercept an amount otherwise to be refunded to him through the mechanism of section 87 of the Administration Act.
2. Section 12 of the ART Act provides that a decision is a "reviewable decision" if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.
3. For the reasons set out above, the decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation is not a reviewable decision in the Tribunal's Social Security jurisdiction. Pursuant to the findings of Deputy President Dordevic in McNair, the decision is not otherwise a reviewable decision by the Tribunal in the Tribunal's Taxation jurisdiction. There is no reviewable decision before the Tribunal in this matter.
4. Section 97 of the ART Act provides for mandatory dismissal of an application in the following circumstances:

(a) the application is made for review of a decision; and

(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.

1. The Applicant has made an application for review of a decision by the Commissioner of Taxation and this decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is required to dismiss the application under section 97 of the ART Act.
2. As to the Applicant's alternative submissions, the Tribunal notes that it does not have jurisdiction - in considering the question of whether the application must be dismissed or not - to issue a formal finding of procedural failure. Section 193 of the ART Act provides that the President of the Tribunal has the ability to inform relevant Ministers, relevant Commonwealth entities and the Council of any systemic issues related to the making of reviewable decisions that have been identified in the caseload of the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that the President of the Tribunal issued Notice of Systemic Issue No 1 of 2025, addressing an identified systemic issue relating to the interception of income tax refunds under section 87 of the Administration Act, on 16 September 2025.

The Tribunal dismisses the application pursuant to section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.