The OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case has drawn national attention after Australian authorities froze the assets of a Queensland couple accused of owing over $61 million to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Court documents reveal that the ATO obtained freezing orders against Colin and Ashlee Kinnest, along with several associated companies, amid allegations of false tax filings and inflated business activity statements.
The Federal Court granted the ATO’s request to prevent the dissipation of assets while it seeks to recover the disputed amount. The freezing orders extend to personal properties, company accounts, and assets connected to an OnlyFans creator linked to the couple.
Federal Court Orders and Asset Freeze
According to Federal Court filings, Justice Anderson approved the ATO’s ex-parte application in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bundaberg Indoor Sports Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1104. The court authorised the ATO to secure the defendants’ assets while the tax recovery case proceeds.
The orders froze approximately $61.4 million across five respondents, including two companies, Bundaberg Indoor Sports Pty Ltd and Kinnest Family Pty Ltd—and three individuals. The couple’s luxury properties, business accounts, and other assets were included in the freeze. The court allowed limited access to funds for living and legal expenses, as required under Australian law.
Allegations of False GST Credits and Inflated Turnover
The ATO alleges that the couple and their companies lodged false business activity statements, claiming excessive Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds. Between September 2021 and December 2024, the group allegedly reported over $537 million in sales figures the ATO described as “excessive and out of character” for the businesses involved.
Authorities claim that more than $30 million was paid out to the entities before the suspected irregularities were detected. The ATO asserts that the companies created misleading financial records to support the inflated claims, which formed the basis of the false refunds.
Background of the Couple and Linked Entities
Court documents identify Colin and Ashlee Kinnest as directors and shareholders of Bundaberg Indoor Sports Pty Ltd and Kinnest Family Pty Ltd. The ATO believes both companies were used to channel payments and hold proceeds from the alleged false refunds.
Bundaberg Indoor Sports Pty Ltd was registered as an indoor sports business in Queensland but reportedly declared revenue far beyond its typical operations. The ATO’s affidavit indicates that the company’s bank accounts received millions in transactions inconsistent with legitimate business activity.
Property Purchases and Connection to OnlyFans Creator
The OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case also references property transactions involving a Gold Coast house purchased for an OnlyFans content creator, identified in court records as Bridget Cotter. The property, valued at $867,000, was included in the freezing orders after the ATO linked the purchase to funds originating from the Kinnests’ business accounts. 
A Gold Coast property worth $867,000 was among assets frozen in the OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case
The ATO claims that assets, including luxury vehicles and property, were acquired using money obtained through the alleged tax misstatements. The freeze order extends to any proceeds of sale or transfer related to the listed assets.
Legal Proceedings and Recovery Action
The freezing orders are part of an ongoing civil tax recovery process. The Court accepted the ATO’s argument that there was a real risk the assets could be moved or concealed if not restrained. Under Australian law, such orders are temporary measures designed to preserve assets while disputes are resolved.
The respondents have the right to challenge the orders or provide security for the frozen amounts. The Court also directed them to disclose full details of their assets, including property, bank accounts, and any overseas holdings. The next hearing is expected to determine whether the orders will remain in place while the ATO finalises its recovery claim.
Wider Enforcement Context
The OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case reflects the ATO’s ongoing efforts to curb large-scale GST refund schemes and aggressive tax evasion tactics. The agency has previously used similar freezing orders through its Serious Financial Crime Taskforce to prevent asset transfers during investigations.
The ATO stated that it will continue pursuing civil and criminal remedies where appropriate. It has increased scrutiny of digital income streams, online business activities, and undeclared earnings, particularly within social media and adult content platforms.
Also Read: Shocking Daylight Heist: Louvre’s Priceless Jewels Stolen
Final Thoughts
The OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case presents one of the most high-profile tax disputes currently before the Australian courts. With over $61 million at stake, the ATO’s recovery action demonstrates a strong stance against alleged false reporting and misuse of tax systems.
The court’s interim orders preserve the disputed assets while the legal process continues. As proceedings advance, the case will test how Australian tax law addresses complex digital-era income and financial misreporting involving both business and personal transactions.
FAQs
- What is the OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case?
The OnlyFans sugar daddy tax case involves the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) seeking to recover about A$61.4 million from a Queensland couple and their companies. The ATO alleges they lodged false business activity statements and inflated GST refund claims. - Who are the parties involved in the case?
The case names Bundaberg Indoor Sports Pty Ltd, Kinnest Family Pty Ltd, and individuals Colin Kinnest and Ashlee Kinnest. A property owner named Bridget Cotter is also listed among the respondents. - What actions has the court taken in the case?
The Federal Court of Australia issued ex-parte freezing orders against the respondents’ assets, including bank accounts, real estate, and vehicles, to prevent the removal or concealment of funds while the ATO pursues its claim. - On what basis is the ATO claiming recovery of A$61.4 million?
The ATO alleges that the companies reported about A$537 million in sales between September 2021 and December 2024, figures considered well beyond normal business levels. It also claims that more than A$30 million in false GST refunds were paid before detection. - What kind of assets have been frozen under the court orders?
The freeze covers residential properties, business premises, vehicles, bank accounts, and shares. A Gold Coast property valued at A$867,000, linked to one respondent, was among the frozen assets. - What are the next steps for the respondents and the ATO?
The respondents can contest the freezing orders or provide security for the frozen amounts. They must also disclose complete details of their assets. The ATO will continue its recovery process and finalise amended tax assessments. - Does this case imply criminal charges?
The freezing orders are civil proceedings aimed at safeguarding assets. While the ATO referred to the matter as “tax mischief,” no criminal charges have been filed. Any potential prosecution would require a separate process and further evidence.
