Carrello (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Jones (deceased) [2026] FCA 468

In Carrello (Trustee), in the matter of the Bankrupt Estate of Jones (deceased) [2026] FCA 468, the Federal Court dismissed an application to appoint the trustee in bankruptcy as receiver and manager of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF). The application arose because the sole remaining trustee was an undischarged bankrupt and the former corporate trustee was in liquidation, leaving no person able to lawfully wind up the fund. The applicants sought to sell the fund’s main asset and distribute half of the proceeds to the deceased member’s bankrupt estate.

The judge accepted the Court had power under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act to appoint a receiver, but refused relief due to serious shortcomings. These included inadequate disclosure about the intended use of the deceased member’s superannuation, failure to address whether creditors had any lawful claim on those benefits, limited engagement with the fund deed, and lack of clarity about potential beneficiary claims (including adult children). The Court was also concerned about the absence of evidence of independent advice and unexplored alternatives under the SIS Act. The application was dismissed, with liberty to apply again.

Deemhire Pty Limited as trustee of the Vartuli Family Trust v No Defendant [2026] NSWSC 318 (2 April 2026)

The NSW Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Bruno and Nancy Vartuli against land tax assessments for the 2007–2013 land tax years, confirming that their Edmondson Park property was not exempt under s 10AA of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW). Although the land was used for cattle grazing and accepted to be primary production, it was not rural land following rezoning and therefore required satisfaction of additional statutory tests.

The Court held that the cattle operations did not have a significant and substantial commercial purpose or character. While the activities were genuine and not a hobby or token operation, they were small-scale and generated ongoing losses or only minimal profits over a long period. Any profits made did not contribute in a real (as opposed to trifling) way to the income of the taxpayers or their related entities.

The Court confirmed that assessing “significant and substantial” commerciality requires an evaluative judgment, considering scale, intensity, profitability, and contribution to income. As this threshold was not met, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Maietta and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 534 (9 April 2026)

The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner of Taxation’s decision to disqualify Roberto Maietta from acting as a responsible officer of the corporate trustee of his selfmanaged superannuation fund (SMSF) under **s 126A(2) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth).

The Tribunal found that the trustee contravened the sole purpose test (s 62) by advancing almost all SMSF assets to a related overseas property development company controlled by Mr Maietta. Although the arrangement was documented as a commercial investment, the Tribunal concluded that one purpose was to accelerate completion of the company’s project, meaning the fund was not maintained solely for retirement purposes.

The Tribunal also found serious and repeated breaches of s 35D, as no SMSF annual returns were lodged for multiple years. Reliance on advisers and disputes over fees did not excuse noncompliance.

Given the seriousness of the contraventions, ongoing noncompliance, and future compliance risk, the Tribunal held that disqualification was appropriate and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Di Trapani & another v Di Trapani & others [2026] QSC 20 (2 March 2026)

Supreme Court of Queensland held a will cannot dispose of discretionary trust assets not owned by the testatrix. Trust property gifts failed, share gift to executors stood, loanforgiveness clause unenforceable, and $400k gifts were separate.

The Court found that Mrs Di Trapani’s will was not drafted by a lawyer and was instead prepared by an accountant known to the family. The accountant stated he had “retyped” an earlier draft will, but the Court noted evidence suggesting he went further than mere transcription. His invoice referred to “assistance for new wills, discuss same and make recommendations and draft same”, and he charged for work relating to wills, company structure and the family trust. There was no evidence Mrs Di Trapani received legal advice before executing the will, and the accountant did not have legal qualifications.

The Court treated the document as a laydrafted will, which influenced its approach to construction and explained why multiple clauses were legally ineffective despite appearing deliberate.

Hunt, in the matter of Hunt (Bankrupt) [2026] FCA 389

Stephen Hunt, an undischarged bankrupt, applied to the Federal Court for leave to manage SB Hunt Super Pty Ltd, the corporate trustee of his self managed superannuation fund (SMSF), and for an order that he not be treated as a disqualified person under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. His bankruptcy automatically disqualified him from managing corporations and acting as a superannuation trustee, which would have caused the SMSF to lose its complying status and suffer significant adverse tax consequences.

The Court accepted that SB Hunt Super’s sole activity was acting as trustee of the SMSF, of which Mr Hunt was the sole member and beneficiary. Mr Hunt’s bankruptcy arose from substantial unpaid tax liabilities following an ATO audit, rather than dishonesty or fraud. He had cooperated with both the ATO and his trustee in bankruptcy and had taken steps to meet settlement obligations before adverse market conditions prevented further payments.

The Court granted the relief sought, subject to strict conditions. Mr Hunt was permitted to manage only SB Hunt Super, which was restricted to acting solely as trustee of the SMSF. He was also relieved from being a disqualified person under the SIS Act, limited to that specific fund until his discharge from bankruptcy. The Court held these conditions adequately protected the public and preserved the integrity of the regulatory regime while avoiding disproportionate consequences for the SMSF.

Sherallene Alicer and Joshua Ramos and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 342 (21 February 2026)

Ms Sherallene Alicer and Mr Joshua Ramos applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of the Commissioner of Taxation’s decision to disqualify them from acting as trustees of their self managed superannuation fund (SMSF), Jiskt Super Fund, and to only partially remit administrative penalties.

Between 2017 and 2023, the applicants repeatedly withdrew SMSF funds and treated them as loans to Ms Alicer to meet personal expenses, including mortgage payments and home renovations. Over extended periods, these loans represented almost 100 per cent of the fund’s assets, leaving the fund largely depleted. Although the withdrawals were later repaid with interest, the Tribunal found the arrangements were not genuinely commercial and lacked arm’s length discipline.

The applicants admitted multiple breaches of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, including lending to members, breaches of the inhouse asset rules, failure to satisfy the sole purpose test, non arm’slength investments and repeated late lodgement of annual returns. In total, there were 244 contraventions over six years.

The Tribunal rejected arguments that personal hardship, relationship breakdown or remediation of the fund justified a lesser outcome. It held that the scale and seriousness of the contraventions exposed members’ retirement savings to significant risk and demonstrated ongoing compliance concerns. Disqualification was therefore affirmed. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner’s decision not to remit penalties further, concluding that full remission would be inconsistent with the penalty regime’s purpose.

Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2026] FCAFC 18 

The case is about Whether the exercise of a put option and a subsequent novation in a forestry managed investment scheme gave rise to one or multiple CGT events “in relation to” a forestry interest for the purposes of Division 394 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and how those events affected assessable income.

In this appeal case to the decision  of Aitken v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] FCA 372, it confirms that multiple CGT events can arise under Division 394 when exiting a forestry managed investment scheme. The Full Federal Court held that exercising a put option was a CGT event “in relation to” a forestry interest because it reduced its market value, even though the option was a separate asset. A later novation disposing of the interests triggered a further CGT event. The taxpayer failed to prove the assessment was excessive due to a lack of evidence on market value and retained rights. The appeal was dismissed.

Sanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWSC 139

The case concerns a former spouse attempting to relitigate family law property and superannuation issues through a civil negligence and fiduciary duty claim.

It is an attempt to recover an alleged failure to pay $4,000 into a superannuation fund, as required by Family Court consent orders. The plaintiff sought to reframe the alleged nonpayment as negligence and breach of fiduciary duty and to involve the SRI Services Superannuation Fund as a party. The NSW Supreme Court held the obligation arose solely from family law orders and had already been dealt with in enforcement proceedings. Relitigating the issue via a civil claim and a superannuation fund was an abuse of process. The plaintiff was restrained from bringing further proceedings, including through her super fund, without leave.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 199 (5 March 2026)

The Federal Court granted ASIC leave to proceed against a financial advice firm in liquidation. ASIC alleges MWL provided inappropriate personal advice, including directing clients’ superannuation into the Shield Master Fund under a “low cost advice” model. The Court held there is a strong public interest in allowing regulators to pursue serious misconduct despite liquidation, particularly where ASIC undertakes not to enforce penalties without further leave.

Hay and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2026] ARTA 268 (27 February 2026) 

Hay v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation [2026] ARTA 268 concerned the effective date of Mr Hay’s reclassification for invalidity benefits under the DFRDB Act. Mr Hay, a former Navy member, suffered PTSD, major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder arising from service-related abuse. Although these conditions existed at discharge in 1984, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of large incapacity before 1996, noting sustained employment and study during that period. The Tribunal held Mr Hay was Class B (30%) from 1984 and Class A (60%) from 1 March 1996, varying the decision accordingly.

Steele v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2026] FCA 170 (26 February 2026) 

Steele v AFCA [2026] FCA 170 concerned an appeal against the summary dismissal of Mr Steele’s challenge to an AFCA determination affirming a superannuation trustee’s decision to pay 100% of a death benefit to the deceased member’s spouse. The Federal Court held the appeal was incompetent because the notice of appeal failed to identify any error of law in the primary judge’s decision, instead advancing new evidence, merit-based arguments and allegations beyond the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs. 

Commissioner of Taxation v S.N.A Group Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 10 (17 February 2026)

The Full Federal Court unanimously overturned a first instance decision allowing deductions for related party “service fees” within the Coronis real estate group. Written license and service agreements governing use of intellectual property and a rent roll expired in 2015, yet payments continued in later years. The taxpayers claimed the payments were deductible under inferred contracts requiring payment of “fair and reasonable” fees. The Full Court held that no such contracts existed. Applying the objective theory of contract, the Court found no outward manifestation of mutual assent between the operating companies and the trustee entities. Subjective intentions of common directors, accounting assumptions, internal coding of payments, arm’s length benchmarking, or the mere fact payments were made were insufficient. There was no evidence of communicated acceptance of liability, agreed methodology, consistent fee structure, or conduct demonstrating that the parties regarded themselves as contractually bound. As no enforceable contractual obligation existed, the service fees were not incurred for tax purposes and were not deductible.

ASIC v Keystone Asset Management Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) (No 4) [2026] FCA 89

The Federal Court (Moshinsky J) dismissed an application by Paul Chiodo to partially set aside subpoenas issued to banks at the request of court appointed receivers of Keystone. While the Court rejected the argument that the subpoenas were relevant to resolving fund intermingling issues in an interim distribution application, it accepted that they were properly issued to assist the receivers in identifying, tracing and securing Keystone’s property, including possible misapplied trust funds. The subpoenas were therefore upheld and costs reserved appointed receivers of Keystone.

Nicholson v Sheils [2026] VSC 18

The Supreme Court of Victoria considered the distribution of an intestate estate where the deceased was survived by both a legally married spouse and an unregistered domestic partner. Although still married to the defendant, the deceased had been informally separated from her for about 20 years and they had no ongoing personal or financial relationship. From 2018 until his death in 2023, the plaintiff lived with the deceased in a committed domestic relationship and jointly acquired property.

The Court found the plaintiff was the deceased’s unregistered domestic partner under the Administration and Probate Act 1958. It was noted that the plaintiff had already received the deceased’s superannuation death benefits, valued at about $170,000, which passed outside the estate. After considering this, along with the modest size of the estate, the long separation from the defendant, and the plaintiff’s financial need, the Court held it was just and equitable under s 70ZD to allocate the entire residuary estate to the plaintiff.

Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees v [2026] FWC 127 (14 January 2026)

The Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees sought paid primary caregiver leave for two Aurizon employees whose partners had caesarean births, arguing the men became primary caregivers and were entitled under clauses 27.24 and 27.29 of the Aurizon Coal Enterprise Agreement 2022. Aurizon rejected the requests because neither employee gave birth nor adopted, and the birth parents had not returned to work, which the Agreement requires for partner access to paid leave. The Fair Work Commission held the clauses were clear, not discriminatory, and did not entitle the employees to paid primary caregiver leave. The Commission found the National Employment Standards were irrelevant because the National Employment Standards (NES)  governs unpaid, not paid, parental leave. The applications were refused.

Petrovic and Australian Securities & Investments Commission (Taxation and business) [2025] ARTA 2717 (11 December 2025)

The Administrative Review Tribunal reviewed ASIC’s decision banning financial adviser Milutin Petrovic for six years over failures while implementing United Global Capital’s “limited advice” model. ASIC found he breached multiple financial services laws, including best interest duties, appropriate advice requirements, conflict management duties, and misleading conduct, largely due to relying on templated documents and inadequate client investigation. Though he argued he acted in good faith and was misled by his employer, the Tribunal held the obligations were personal, his conduct serious, and he lacked sufficient insight. The ban was reduced to three years, starting 24 January 2025, but otherwise left unchanged.

Mr QSFT and Mrs WKXH and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2514 (24 November 2025)

The Tribunal upheld Centrelink’s calculation of Mr QSFT and Mrs WKXH’s age pension. As controllers and attributable stakeholders of their family trust, they were correctly assessed on both the trust’s dividend income and deemed income from a $143,201 loan they had made to the trust. The applicants argued this amounted to double counting, but the Tribunal found the two income sources were legally distinct: dividends earned by the trust and deemed income on a financial asset (the loan). Since the loan still existed and had not been repaid or forgiven, deeming rules applied. The Tribunal concluded the legislation required both amounts to be assessed and affirmed the decision.  

XBRK & RKYV and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Practice and procedure) [2026] ARTA 17 (8 January 2026)

The Tribunal dismissed the applications by XBRK & RKYV for lack of jurisdiction. The applicants sought review of Centrelink’s alleged failure to revalue listed securities between 2017 and 2022 and claimed entitlement to pension arrears. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that Centrelink had made any “decision” within the statutory meaning no officer had turned their mind to the revaluation issue or refused to act. Without a reviewable decision under the Social Security and Administrative Review legislation, the Tribunal could not conduct a second review. Earlier authorised review officer’s decisions already reviewed and affirmed were not challenged by the applicants. As no valid jurisdictional foundation existed, the applications were dismissed under section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

McLennan v McLennan [2025] NSWSC 1603 (23 December 2025)

McLennan v McLennan involved an elderly father, John, seeking to unwind past estate planning transactions that gave his son, Ruskin, control of family trusts and ownership of the Bombi Road home. The Court found that over many years John and his late wife Karen intentionally structured their affairs on professional legal advice to place Ruskin in control, largely due to concerns about their daughter Susannah’s long term vulnerability. After Karen’s death, John changed his mind and claimed unconscionable conduct, saying Ruskin had overborne him. The Court rejected this, finding John’s affidavit evidence unreliable, the solicitor’s evidence credible, and the transactions rational and voluntary. All challenges failed except that Ruskin must account for past expenditure from his parents’ bank accounts.