Social media tax scam turns tyre fitter into ‘reckless’ fraudster

At the time, Crawford claimed he believed Eleuteri to be a tax agent or in tune with tax laws when he allowed Eleuteri to lodge amended income tax returns on his behalf for the income years ended 30 June 2019, 2020 and 2021.

The fraudulent activity landed Crawford with a notice from the Commissioner of Taxation that he was liable to pay administrative penalty assessments of $18,415.80, $24,039.85 and $20,823.71 for “recklessness” under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (TAA).

Crawford failed to convince the Tribunal he was a victim of a scammer and was not liable for the penalties ordered by the Commissioner, as he had “not discharged the burden on proving that the penalties were excessive, otherwise incorrect”.

This was deduced from the fact that fraudulent income tax returns lodged by Eleuteri on behalf of Crawford resulted in claimed deductions for the income tax years of 2019, 2020 and 2021 equivalent to Crawford’s gross income.

“Consequently, Crawford’s taxable income was reduced to nil, and he obtained tax refunds from the ATO,” the Commissioner said.

“Mr Crawford does not dispute that he never incurred the expenses referable to the claimed deductions and that he was not entitled to the income tax refunds.”

The background

Following Crawford’s claim of fraudulent refunds from the ATO, valued at $48,106.59, $35,856 and $41,647.42, the Tax Office commenced an audit in relation to the income tax years on 21 April 2022 after it detected the activity, and blocked the 2021 refund from reaching Crawford’s account.

This was followed by the issue of the penalty assessments, which allegedly caused Crawford to panic and correspond with Eleuteri, who claimed he should ignore the ATO and not pay any of the refunds back.

Crawford said this was allegedly the point he realised Eleuteri had been wrong, prompting him to engage his previous tax agent, who helped Crawford pay the ATO tax refunds back and issue a voluntary disclosure form to the Commissioner.

The tax agent said Crawford was allegedly “a victim of a scammer and was prepared to provide the ATO with all information” and helped him object to the penalty assessments on 6 August 2022.

Crawford was noted to have maintained his victim stance and submitted that the Commissioner should pursue Eleuteri as the person who prompted the fraudulent arrangement.

Crawford also put forward evidence that he could allegedly not pay the penalties on the basis of it being unaffordable due to looking after several family members and having to sell machinery.

The Commissioner deemed this evidence as unpersuasive and disallowed Crawford’s objection, which was later affirmed on 28 January 2026.

“It is not appropriate in the circumstances to place any weight on Crawford’s financial hardship or his remorse as relevant facts with respect to the remission of penalties which resulted from the consequences of his reckless conduct.”

“Rather, the weight is properly placed in a case such as this involving opportunistic conduct, on the object of the penalty regime in the TAA, including to ensure compliance with taxation laws.”