Taxpayer's $650k claim falls short

In 2020, the matter was resolved when the commissioner determined that the private ruling was incorrect and ordered repayment of the tax overpaid by Egan, as well as statutory interest. Egan pursued compensation from the commissioner in the sum of $300,000 for direct financial loss and $350,000 for the lost opportunity to invest, together with costs and interest.

A deed of settlement was entered in mid-2025, to which Egan entered, then sought to annul four days later, seeking variation or compensation for global economic loss damages of $300,000.

Egan claimed that he agreed to the deed due to undue influence, duress, non-disclosure of material facts where disclosure was required, or misrepresentation.

Federal Court of Australia Justice Amelia Wheatley dealt with the claim, viewing a series of written correspondence between the commissioner and Egan around the time the deed was signed.

Egan claimed that he suffered undue influence because the deed was issued on a “take it or leave it basis”, and that he had no meaningful opportunity to obtain legal advice prior to the deal and “was financially vulnerable, self-represented, permanently disabled and reliant on disputed insurance proceeds”.

“Although Mr Egan referred to being permanently disabled, he did not elaborate on this contention and provided no evidence to support it,” Justice Wheatley found.

The court found that he had a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice.

The commissioner asserted that Egan had no reasonable prospect of success and sought summary judgment. Egan submitted that the words used by the commissioner in the series of correspondence, “highly unlikely to succeed”, “statute-barred” and “speculation” were each a misrepresentation.

“He contends that each was false and was without any detail,” the court heard.

“We take it that you press for a finding of defective administration and additional compensation beyond the interest of $49,324.79 already paid to you,” a letter from the Commonwealth to Egan at the time read.

The court found no misrepresentation.

Justice Wheatley found that Egan’s assertions that the deed was entered under undue influence, duress, non-disclosure of material facts where disclosure was required, or misrepresentation were not made out.

“It is clear that Mr Egan has felt that this entire administrative process has been unfair and deficient,” Justice Wheatley said.

Upon consideration of all evidence, Justice Wheatley awarded the commissioner a summary judgment with costs to be fixed on a lump sum basis, finding that Egan’s bases did not provide a basis to claim compensation by way of damages.

The case citation: Egan v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] FCA 1104 (11 August 2026)