He objected to an assessment that reduced his tax to nil, chasing a $19.6 million credit for tax never withheld.
A self-represented taxpayer objected to an amended assessment that had reduced his tax to nil.
He was not trying to pay less. He wanted income put back on the assessment, because he was chasing a $19.6 million credit for tax he believed had been withheld on royalties he claimed he was owed. Without that income on the assessment, the claim had nothing to stand on.
A strange case, unlikely to be repeated - but an interesting one, turning on a claim to royalties from Crocodile Dundee. Bouvet and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 1075.
The royalty claim
The taxpayer believed he was owed royalties as a co-creator of the film Crocodile Dundee, and that tax had been withheld on them. He declared $20.4 million of royalty income for the year, claimed a $19.6 million withholding credit, and sought a refund of about $10 million.
He had never been paid a cent. His case was that tax the ATO had recovered from other people years earlier was being held on trust for him. The ATO removed the $20.4 million, finding no evidence he had received it, and refused the credit, finding no evidence anything had been withheld.
One letter, two decisions
The ATO’s letter did two things, and only one of them could be reviewed.
The refusal of the credit could not. A PAYG withholding credit is not part of an assessment - it is applied against the tax once assessed - so a decision to refuse it is not objectable under Part IVC [30], [32]. With no right to object there is no reviewable decision, and the Tribunal must dismiss a review of a decision that is not reviewable: section 97 of the ART Act [35].
The objection to removing the income was reviewable, but futile. Even if the Tribunal restored the $20.4 million, he would owe around $9 million he could not pay [41], and still have no credit, because nothing had been withheld and tax paid to the Commissioner is consolidated revenue, not held on trust [45]. The only outcome on offer left him worse off. An application that cannot improve a party’s position lacks substance and has no reasonable prospects: section 101 [37], [46], [50].
What is actually reviewable
Two things are worth carrying into practice.
First, not every line in an ATO decision letter is reviewable. A refused withholding credit sits outside the assessment, so Part IVC and the Tribunal are the wrong forum - if there is a remedy, it lies elsewhere [32], [35].
Second, a credit only arises where tax was actually withheld from a payment to you. No payment, no withholding, no credit, and tax collected from someone else is never yours to claim.
The Tribunal accepted the taxpayer was sincere and not trying to mislead [44]. His honesty was never in question. The difficulty was that the law could give him nothing the claim was built to deliver.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.