Problem.
The trustee of a family trust was disallowed a substantial deduction (more than AUD $1.5M) on a lost investment. The trustee had initially failed in the objection process with representation from their tax agent. The trustee then made an application in the ART to argue that the absence of the trust resolution meant that their assessment should be reconsidered.
Aptum’s role.
Aptum was engaged because the application was failing. Aptum filed a further application that the ATO could still consider the trust resolution grants, and due to resource constraints, did so without briefing counsel. This review application raised novel and complex questions regarding trust law and assessment of trust income. Aptum was responsible for conceiving of and advocating the arguments before the Tribunal.
Outcome.
The ATO subsequently entirely dropped its opposition to the application (after several years of resistance) and consented to the assessments being set aside in full.
Most tax disputes get resolved through the ATO’s internal processes. You lodge an objection. The ATO assigns an independent officer to review the decision. Often that is the end of it.
Tax litigation starts when those internal processes have run out of road. The objection has been disallowed, or the ATO has issued a formal recovery instrument, or the dispute turns on a point of law that the ATO will not concede. At that point your matter is heading for the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), the Federal Court of Australia, or a State Supreme Court.
Aptum’s tax litigation practice exists for that point. Our singular focus is on running complex tax disputes through courts and tribunals, with the strategy and execution that a final-determination forum requires.
Reviews of ATO objection decisions, including R&D disallowances, GST disputes, valuation disputes, and assessments. The ART replaced the AAT and now hears most reviews of ATO decisions. As Nigel Evans put it, “you almost have to pretend the Commissioner isn’t involved.” The Tribunal decides the matter afresh on the evidence, not by reviewing what the ATO did.
Appeals from the ART on questions of law, original jurisdiction appeals against ATO objection decisions under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, and judicial review of administrative decisions.
Equivalent appeals for state tax disputes, including land tax assessments, stamp duty objections, landholder duty, payroll tax and windfall gains tax.
Challenging the way the ATO has exercised its powers, including the issue of garnishee notices, information-gathering notices, freezing orders or security demands. Run under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
Defending debt judgment applications, creditors’ petitions for bankruptcy, and winding-up applications brought by the ATO at all levels of state courts (Local, Magistrates, District, County, Supreme) and the Federal Court.
Defending claims by a liquidator that relate to or arise from your tax liability or your company’s tax liability, including unfair preferences and insolvent trading claims tied to tax debt.
Where the Court orders or the parties agree to mediate, including ART-supervised conferences and Federal Court mediation. Most matters resolve commercially before trial, and the framing at mediation determines whether you settle on terms you can live with.
Aptum’s tax disputes practice is led by Michael Buscema, our Practice Lead for Tax Disputes. For 11 years prior to joining Aptum, Michael worked for the ATO and Commonwealth Treasury, holding a range of senior positions including acting Assistant Commissioner of the ATO. Michael works with listed companies and private wealthy groups to achieve outcomes in areas such as R&D, depreciation of intangibles, Part IVA, and valuation disputes. He supports clients to make confident decisions throughout the lifecycle of a tax dispute, including at audit, objection, reviews to the ART and appeals to the Federal Court.
Michael is supported by Nigel Evans, Aptum’s Managing Director and Co-Founder. Before starting Aptum, Nigel spent 11 years at the commercial Victorian Bar, including work acting for the ATO in tax matters. Nigel is listed in Best Lawyers in Australia for Tax Law (2026) and recognised by Doyle’s Guide as a Leading Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Lawyer. His experience as a barrister means we can think and prepare a matter the way the Tribunal or Court will think about it, not the way the ATO has framed it on the file.
That combination of ATO experience and Bar experience is not biography. It changes how we run your matter.
Many taxpayers and advisors approach an ART review as a continuation of the objection process. It is not. The Tribunal decides the matter afresh on the evidence in front of it. The story the ATO has built on its file is not the case the Tribunal hears unless you allow it to be. We prepare the matter the way the Tribunal needs it presented, not the way the ATO presented it to you.
The ATO is under a statutory duty to recover tax debts unless they are irrecoverable at law or uneconomical to pursue. That same duty shapes how the ATO runs its litigation. It limits what the ATO can settle, who can authorise a settlement and on what grounds. Knowing where the ATO has commercial flexibility and where it does not is the difference between a workable proposal and an unanswered one.
The ATO’s approach to ART matters has tightened in recent years, with less appetite for early settlement and a stronger expectation that the taxpayer carry the substantive case. We bring that posture into how we frame every Tribunal application and every settlement conference.
Aptum runs every matter under our project management framework, with clear expectations on timing, cost and scope from the first call. Before you pay us anything, you get two points of contact, both free, so you know exactly where you stand. No surprises.
If the matter is one we can help with, we bring you in for a second conversation with the practice lead who would run your matter and your client experience coordinator. You get the time and expertise of a senior practitioner who has handled matters like yours, someone with real experience who can give you genuinely useful guidance on how to approach it. Real expertise before you have committed to anything, not a fake triage.
Once you engage, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. For tax litigation, that typically means a stage-based plan: pleadings and evidence preparation, interlocutory steps, mediation or settlement conference, and hearing. Each stage gets its own forecast.
Depending on the action, this is the phase for ART applications, Federal Court appeals, judicial review applications, defences to summary judgment, settlement negotiations with the case officer or recovery team, or trial preparation. Routine documented strategy. Regular communications. A relentless focus on the essential issues. Project management isn’t a bolt-on at Aptum, it’s a discipline embedded in every part of our practice.
Litigation isn’t cookie-cutter, and we don’t pretend it is. What we commit to is one of our five client service promises: clear expectations as to the timing, costs and scope of our engagement, and updating those expectations as early as possible if anything changes. That’s part of how we run every matter, not a pricing claim invented for this page.
A 15-minute call to work out where the dispute is at and what your options actually are at this stage.
Once engaged, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. Stage-based budgets, regular reporting, and any scope changes documented and agreed in writing.
Aptum approaches litigation with an investment mindset: the most practical outcome in the shortest possible time, at the least possible cost, with the biggest possible return.
The ATO brought a claim for summary judgment against two individuals to recover tax debt of AUD $17.8M. Aptum was engaged to dispute the application and caused the ATO to withdraw it. Orders were made for the ATO to pay our clients’ costs. The ATO then pursued reduced director penalty liabilities in the Federal Court of Australia. Aptum defended on the basis that our clients had been shut out from the company’s affairs by reason of fraud committed by another director. The matter resolved in settlement negotiations with a significant reduction in the original tax liability. Federal Court of Australia.
Aptum was engaged to dispute an ATO objection decision that disallowed a client’s entitlement to deductions for copyright interests. An applicant was made to the Tribunal where the client’s evidence was re-cast to best position their case, which led to a settlement with the ATO following a conciliation. The client was able to achieve a commercial outcome resulting in a refund of over half a million dollars without needing to attend a hearing.
It depends on where the dispute is at. Not every tax dispute needs to be litigated. But several should be, and the wrong choice at the wrong stage often closes off options you would have wanted later.
When your accountant or tax agent is the right call
If the dispute is at the audit or amendment stage and turns on what was actually reported and what was actually paid, your accountant is often the right starting point. They know your numbers and they can prepare the response.
When the objection process is the right call
If the ATO has issued an assessment or amended assessment and you have a genuine basis to disagree, an objection is the structured way to challenge it inside the ATO. Aptum runs objections, but a well-prepared accountant or tax agent can often run an objection too. Our Objections to Tax Assessments service covers this in detail.
When tax litigation is the right call
Once your objection has been disallowed, or the ATO has issued a formal recovery instrument, or the dispute turns on a point of law the ATO will not concede, you need a tax litigation lawyer. The deadlines are statutory. The forums are formal. The advocacy is different from objection-stage submissions. And legal privilege over your strategy and options only attaches to your communications with a lawyer.
Aptum services tax litigation clients across Australia from three offices.
(03) 7020 9230
Suite 7.01, Level 7, 419 Flinders Lane, Melbourne VIC 3000
(02) 7202 3404
Level 1, 60 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000
(07) 3778 3693
Level 38, 71 Eagle Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
“Aptum is always prepared to assist substantively on cases, including strategic input, technical research, drafting and liaising with other parties. I greatly appreciate Aptum’s expertise and capacity to work on cases.”
- Anonymous“Very grateful to Michael and the whole team at Aptum for everything they did on my case and for all their guidance and support to achieve the best outcome. Highly recommend this fantastic team. Thank you so much!”
- TaniaTax litigation is the process of resolving a tax dispute through a court or tribunal rather than through the ATO’s internal processes. Your dispute moves into that category when the objection has been disallowed, the ATO has commenced recovery proceedings, you have applied for ART review, or you are appealing to the Federal Court. Most disputes get resolved before they reach this stage. The ones that do need a different set of skills, evidence and advocacy than the objection stage required.
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions of the ATO and other Commonwealth agencies. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2024. For tax matters, the ART hears reviews of ATO objection decisions including disallowed deductions, GST assessments, R&D claim refusals, valuation disputes, and Part IVA general anti-avoidance assessments. The ART decides the matter afresh on the evidence.
Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 is the statutory framework that lets you challenge an ATO tax assessment. It sets the timeframes for lodging objections, the requirements for what an objection must contain, and the pathways to the ART or the Federal Court if the objection is disallowed. Aptum has a detailed guide to Part IVC on the blog.
It depends on the forum and the complexity. ART reviews typically run for between six months and over a year. Federal Court appeals from the ART or original jurisdiction Part IVC appeals usually run for more than a year. State Supreme Court tax appeals are similar. Most matters resolve before final hearing, whether through Tribunal-supervised conferences, mediation, or settlement of an objection that had been disallowed.
Yes, in some circumstances. Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 allows a taxpayer to appeal an objection decision directly to the Federal Court instead of going to the ART first. Which forum makes sense depends on the issues in dispute, the evidence required, and the costs implications. We provide tailored advice on what forum is best for your case.
Part IVA is the general anti-avoidance rule in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. It lets the ATO disregard a scheme where the sole or dominant purpose was to obtain a tax benefit. Part IVA disputes turn on eight statutory factors, and the way the Court weighs them has moved significantly in recent years. Aptum’s guide to the eight Part IVA factors and how courts assess tax schemes sets out the current state of the law.
The ATO can refer a matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions where it considers there is evidence of a criminal offence, including tax fraud, tax evasion, or providing false or misleading information. The triggers, process and protection strategies are covered in Aptum’s published guide. Where a criminal referral is on the table, the civil tax matter and the criminal proceeding need to be run together, and what you say in one can affect the other.
Sometimes. For complex hearings in the Federal Court or State Supreme Court, briefing counsel is often the right call. For most ART matters and many interlocutory steps, Aptum can run the matter without briefing counsel. The $1.5M ART matter described above was prosecuted by Aptum without briefing counsel. We discuss whether to brief counsel at the pathways assessment stage, with cost and strategy weighed transparently.
Most matters resolve commercially well before final hearing, through Tribunal-supervised conferences, mediation, settlement of an objection, or withdrawal of an ATO application before the first return date. Where the ATO will not move, we run the matter to determination. The path is chosen on the evidence and the prospects, not on a default preference.
You can, but the consequences of getting it wrong are significant. Tax litigation has statutory timeframes, technical evidence requirements, and advocacy expectations that the ATO and the Tribunal apply rigorously. Legal privilege over your strategy and your options only attaches to your communications with a lawyer. If you are considering self-representation, we will tell you honestly at the diagnostic call whether that is realistic for your matter.
Aptum publishes regularly on tax litigation, the ART, Part IVC and the way the ATO runs its court matters.
Understand the ATO’s internal process for raising Part IVA, from risk review to GAAR Panel, and where you can still influence the outcome before a determination issues.
Challenging an ATO assessment doesn’t automatically stop collection. Understand your options for staying ATO debt recovery while running a Part IVC dispute.
Part IVA investigations don’t have to end in a formal determination. Learn what you can do before the ATO makes its final decision, and when you still have room to influence the outcome.
If your tax dispute is heading to the ART, the Federal Court or a Supreme Court, the deadlines are statutory and the evidence preparation starts now. In a 15-minute call, Aptum’s tax litigation team will tell you exactly where you stand and what your options are. No surprises.
