Cybersecurity is fast becoming a critical business strategy, and if it’s not, it should be. Many businesses hold critical data that poses significant risk to both businesses and their customers if the data they hold is not safeguarded from cybersecurity threats.

The largest threats to businesses come from external entry points exposed by staff, through phishing links, malware being downloaded and payment fraud. The valuable information held by some businesses (such as professional firms) make them prime for cyber attacks, which can have devastating impacts on businesses and their customers.

Outside of Government organisations, the financial services sector was the most targeted industry in Australia in FY 2024/25, with the cost of these cybercrimes increasing up to 55% for small and medium businesses.

​A new Bill before Parliament, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025, proposes several key changes that could affect small businesses, listed companies, and the not-for-profit sector. The headline measure is the proposed extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off for another year, to 30 June 2026.

Imagine this: after years of hardship and illness, you’re forced to retire early on a Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) pension from your super fund. It’s your only income stream. Then come the medical bills;  tens of thousands of dollars in treatments to manage the very conditions that ended your career. You might assume those costs are tax deductible as the TPD pension was payable because of this disability.

Unfortunately, a recent tribunal case shows it’s not that simple. In Wannberg v Commissioner of Taxation [2025] ARTA 1561, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) upheld the ATO’s decision to deny nearly $100,000 in medical deductions. The case is a stark reminder that the tax system draws a sharp line between earning income and dealing with your health.

If your super balance is comfortably below $3 million, you can probably relax, the proposed changes to the super rules shouldn’t adversely affect you (yet). But if your super is nudging that level, or if you’re clearly over, the Treasurer’s latest announcement could change how you think about super’s generous tax breaks.

For some time now the Government has been planning to introduce targeted measures to reduce tax concessions for those with superannuation balances over $3 million. This has commonly been referred to as the Division 296 tax.

However, the Government has reworked the proposed new tax, part of the Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions (BTSC) policy, attempting to make it simpler, fairer, and more practical. After a wave of industry criticism, the revised version keeps the broad policy intent (reducing tax concessions for very large balances) but removes some of the more problematic features.

Let’s break down what’s changed and what it means for you.

The latest Class Annual Benchmark Report, a Hub24 company, provides a clear picture of how self-managed super funds (SMSFs) are performing in 2025. The findings highlight trends, opportunities, and practical considerations for trustees who want to get the most from their funds. 

Here are some of the key takeaways and how they could affect the way you manage your fund. 

​Superannuation is one of the largest assets for many Australians and offers significant tax advantages, however, strict rules apply to when it can be accessed. While super is most commonly accessed at retirement, death or disability, there are limited situations where earlier access may be possible.

​Leaving debts outstanding with the ATO is now more expensive for many taxpayers.

General interest charge (GIC) and shortfall interest charge (SIC) imposed by the ATO is no longer tax-deductible from 1 July 2025. This applies regardless of whether the underlying tax debt relates to past or future income years.

With GIC currently at 11.17%, this is now one of the most expensive forms of finance in the market and unlike in the past, you won’t get a deduction to offset the cost. For many taxpayers, this makes relying on an ATO payment plan a costly strategy.

​A recent decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Goldenville Family Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2025]) highlights the importance of documentation and evidence when it comes to tax planning and the consequences of not getting this right.

The case involved a family trust which generated significant amounts of income. For the 2015, 2016 and 2017 income years, the trustee attempted to distribute most of the income to a non-resident beneficiary. As the trustee believed the income was classified as interest (this was challenged successfully by the ATO), the trustee assumed that the income would be subject to a final Australian tax at 10%, under the non-resident withholding rules. This was clearly more favourable than having the income taxed in the hands of Australian resident beneficiaries at higher marginal rates.

A recent case before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) has clarified how strict the rules are when it comes to trust distributions and tax. 

The case involved the Goldenville Family Trust (GFT), which had distributed income in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 financial years. The trustee attempted to allocate some of this income, including to a beneficiary who lived overseas, with the goal of reducing the overall tax paid. 

At Hansens, we spend a lot of time supporting our clients with their dealings with the ATO. But sometimes, we find ourselves on the receiving end too. 

On 27 August, the ATO issued us a letter for our June BAS. The strange part? The BAS was due and paid on 25 August. We received the letter on 28 August, three days after everything had already been finalised. 

So what’s going on?