DPN Review: A Wake-Up Call for Business Owners on Personal Tax Risks

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Running a successful business is hard work—and sometimes, despite best intentions, tax obligations slip. If the business is being operated through a company structure, then the ATO can potentially issue a Director Penalty Notice (DPN), holding company directors personally liable for unpaid taxes.


In 2024–25, DPNs skyrocketed by 136%, reaching over 84,000 notices, affecting directors of around 64,000 companies. The stakes are high, and now the Tax Ombudsman is reviewing how the ATO issues and manages these notices—a development all directors should take seriously.

So, what exactly is a DPN? Put simply, if your company fails to pay certain taxes—like PAYG withholding, GST, or Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC)—the ATO can target directors personally. There are two types:


  • Non-lockdown DPNs: These apply if the company has lodged its activity statements or SGC statements but hasn’t made the relevant payments. In this case directors have 21 days to take appropriate action, such as arranging for payment of the debt, appointing an administrator, or entering liquidation. Acting promptly may allow the penalty to be remitted.
  •  Lockdown DPNs: These apply if reporting deadlines are missed as well. In this scenario directors can’t avoid personal liability by putting the company into administration or liquidation.


The intent is to protect government revenue and employee entitlements—but for directors, the impact can be severe.


Why the Ombudsman is Involved


The review, announced in December 2025 by Tax Ombudsman Ruth Owen, responds to a surge in complaints, with DPNs topping the list. It will examine:


  •  How effectively the ATO uses DPNs to recover debts ($54.2 billion in collectable amounts by mid-2025)
  • The fairness of selecting cases for enforcement
  • How directors are notified and communicated with
  • Treatment of vulnerable directors, including those coerced into roles or facing financial abuse


The review also aligns with broader government initiatives, including support for gender-based violence survivors and more empathetic engagement with business owners. While timelines are flexible due to resources, the review is part of the 2025–26 work plan, alongside assessments of ATO services for agents, First Nations engagement, and interest charge remissions.


Commercial Takeaways for Directors


DPNs are more than a compliance issue—they’re a real commercial risk. Ignoring a notice can disrupt personal finances, damage credit ratings, and even trigger bankruptcy. At the same time, the Ombudsman review could improve transparency and fairness, giving directors a clearer understanding of options if financial stress arises.


Practical steps to protect yourself now


  •  Stay on top of obligations: make sure the company lodges returns and pays liabilities on time.
  • Lodge statements even if payment isn’t possible: Failing to lodge activity statements just makes things worse.
  • Consider using ATO payment plans if cash flow is tight but remember that this won’t necessarily enable directors to escape personal liability if a DPN has been issued already.
  • Monitor company cash flow and tax health closely, especially during economic dips.
  • Act fast if you receive a DPN: Consult immediately your accountant or lawyer to explore options because strict deadlines might apply.
  • Consider director insurance or business structuring to limit personal exposure—but compliance always comes first.


The Ombudsman’s review is a timely reminder: tax is a key business risk, not just paperwork. Being informed, proactive, and prepared can protect both your business and your personal assets. If you’re concerned about DPN exposure, reach out for a tailored review—we can help you stay ahead of risk, so your business thrives rather than just survives.


By Clarke McEwan September 1, 2026
At the Federal Budget in May 2026, the Government announced that it would reintroduce a loss carry back tax offset for companies, providing a crucial buffer to any business facing difficult trading conditions.
By Clarke McEwan August 30, 2026
Tax Time 2026 is in full swing, and with that comes a decision for anyone who uses their car for work purposes: is it better to claim a deduction using the logbook or cents per kilometre method? When can I claim car expenses? Broadly, tax deductions for car expenses (i.e. the costs you incur to own and operate a car) are available where you use your car for work-related trips, such as for travel between workplaces or to perform your work duties. The exception is ordinary commuting to and from work - such expenses cannot typically be claimed, as they’re considered private expenses. Cents per kilometre method The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim a fixed rate for each work-related kilometre you travel, up to a maximum of 5,000 km each year. This fixed rate per km covers all of your car expenses for a year, including decline in value, registration and insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel costs. For the 2025-26 tax year, the rate of deduction is 88 cents per kilometre, which means this tax time, the maximum potential amount of deduction is $4,400. (And keep in mind that the rate of deduction has been increased to 91 cents per km as of 1 July 2026, meaning a total potential deduction of $4,550 in the 2026-27 tax year). One of the benefits of using the cents per kilometre method is that it’s relatively simple, as you don’t need to keep receipts for your fuel or car expenses. However, you do need to keep records to show how you’ve calculated your work-related kilometres (for example, a diary), and you also need to be able to show that you own the car you’re using for work. Logbook method If you have a lot of work-related car expenses and have the time, you might find that the logbook method gives you the best deduction. The logbook method allows you to claim the work-related portion of your actual car expenses. This means that you can claim for a percentage of the actual expenses incurred on running costs such as fuel, electricity, servicing, registration, insurance and the decline in value, provided you’ve used the car in the course of your work. However, as the potential deductions under the logbook method are higher, there are stricter record-keeping requirements to meet. This includes keeping a logbook, which allows the calculation of how much you can claim back, it must: - cover at least 12 continuous weeks and be broadly representative of your travel, - include the reason and purpose, as well as the destination of every work-related journey, - the odometer reading at the start and end of each journey, - and the total kilometres travelled on the journey, - include odometer readings for the start and end of the logbook period and the total kilometres travelled during that period. Each journey in your logbook must be made at the end of the journey or as soon as possible afterwards. If you don't have a valid logbook, then unfortunately you cannot use the logbook method to claim car expenses, although the cents per km method may be available instead. Which is better? The answer to whether you should choose the logbook or cents per km method is very dependent on your personal situation. If you have light work-related car use and don’t love keeping extensive records, the cents per km method may be better suited to your needs, while those who use their car for work frequently may receive a higher deduction under the logbook method. If you’re unsure which method is best for you, speak to a member of our team today.
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
By Clarke McEwan August 19, 2026
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
By Clarke McEwan August 17, 2026
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care.
By Clarke McEwan August 11, 2026
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care. Strong financial management is essential for maintaining profitability, supporting growth, meeting compliance obligations, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the practice.
By Clarke McEwan August 10, 2026
To ensure passage of the negative gearing and CGT discount changes that were announced in the May 2026 Federal Budget the Government agreed to make amendments to the SMSF borrowing rules. SMSFs are able to borrow in restricted circumstances which includes borrowing under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase a single acquirable asset. While there have previously been no specific legislative restrictions on the type of asset a SMSF can borrow to purchase, most commonly we see LRBAs being used to purchase property. Up until this point, this could have been any type of real property. These amendments will mean that when SMSF trustees wish to borrow to purchase a property, it must meet the business real property (BRP) definition. This BRP definition relates to usage of the property rather than zoning or what the property was originally built for. This change became law on 26 June 2026, but the Bill includes a 45 day transitional period which will finish on 10 August 2026. This transitional period may allow for arrangements that are currently being implemented on non-BRP assets to be allowable under the new rules where settlement occurs after 10 August 2026, provided the arrangement to purchase the property was entered into on or before 10 August 2026. We recommend that SMSF trustees who are currently implementing LRBA arrangements on non-BRP assets seek specialist SMSF legal advice to ensure their arrangements meet these transitional rules. While this change has been referred to in the media as a ban on super funds borrowing to purchase residential property, the use of the BRP definition makes the change slightly more complex than this. As this definition relates to usage of the property, it is possible that some residentially designed properties could meet the BRP definition (for example, a medical practice that operates from a residentially designed terrace dwelling). The BRP definition also requires that the property is wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. This could mean that some properties that may initially appear to be commercial in nature may not meet the BRP definition (for example, a mixed use residential and retail property on a single title). We recommend that SMSF trustees entering into new LRBAs seek advice from specialist legal and financial advisers to ensure the new requirements are met. Existing arrangements The updated rules allow for existing LRBAs over non-BRP assets to continue. They also allow for existing arrangements to be refinanced, subject to lender availability and approval. For any further information please contact our office.
More Posts