iscoverThe director of a corporate catering business has landed a hefty tax bill after failing to pay superannuation guarantee charges and GST liabilities.
No free lunch: Corporate catering director lands $2.8m tax bill
20 November 2025
•
8 minute read
Last Thursday (13 November), catering company director Michael Deering landed a $2,804,639 tax penalty after failing to pay the ATO superannuation guarantee charges (SGC) and GST liabilities over a two-year period.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia found Deering, the director of corporate catering business the Working Lunch Company, liable to pay the penalty in a summary judgment.
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The ATO had pursued Deering under the director penalty regime for unpaid SGC and GST liabilities from April 2022 to May 2024, as well as outstanding GST from tax periods from September 2020 to April 2022.
On 17 February 2025, the ATO issued a director penalty notice (DPN) to Deering totalling $165,964 for the unpaid SGC assessments.
While no payment arrangements were made between Deering and the ATO, the court noted that Deering paid the ATO $10.51 in relation to outstanding SGC for the March 2023 quarter, leaving the total balance owing for that quarter at $22,235. No further payments were made.
The ATO also assessed Deering for outstanding GST of $2,576,022 for the periods September 2020 to 31 March 2024. He was issued a $62,652 penalty in addition to the outstanding GST and SGC assessments, resulting in a total liability of $2,804,639.
Deering, who was self-represented, did not file any submissions in opposition to the ATO. In his court statement, he expressed a measure of disbelief that the ATO had issued proceedings in full knowledge of his financial circumstances.
As a retiree living on the aged pension, he said that he would not be able to pay the almost $3 million penalty.
“He referred to his inability to pay the amount claimed, saying he is a retiree whose sole income is the age pension, that he has no assets and it is impossible for him to pay the amount claimed,” court documents read.
“He also said that he had limited involvement with the Company, had no shares in it, no control, and received only a modest director's fee.”
The court found that hardship or inability to meet a judgment debt was not a reason to refuse an application for a summary judgment, but noted that entry of a judgment and its enforcement were separate matters.
In coming to its decision, the court referenced a separate High Court case, Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Broadbeach Properties Pty Ltd, which concluded that “harsh though the operation of these provisions may be, they implement a long‑standing legislative policy to protect the interests of the revenue.”
Tags:
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
