There is a gap between statutory reporting (the reports we see...

There is a gap between statutory reporting (the reports we see in announcements) and what the ATO allows to be tax deductible. One difference relates to provisions for doubtful debts. The ATO requires the debt to be written off to be claimed as an expense, not just provisioned. Hence the Gascoyne provisioning reduced NPAT, but not the tax due, and probably paid, when the revenue was first recognised. Reversing the provision would in similar vein improve NPAT, but as the tax was paid initially, it would not be taxed again.

So much for tax treatment, but in respect to Statutory Reporting, I am unsure, because much jiggling takes place in tax accounting. For instance, when a company makes a loss, it may show part of the tax thereon as a negative tax expense (a credit to an account that is usually debited), and the contra debit is taken up in the balance sheet as a tax asset, just as though the ATO owed that amount. When the company subsequently makes a profit, you will see the usual 30% tax recorded as a debit as though the tax was required to be paid, but the contra credit entry does not go to the ATO as a payable amount, it is credited to the tax asset, thus reducing it. The ATO gets nothing while that account is in debit.

If in times of gloom, there was a belief that the company would never earn enough to recover the lost tax, the company would in improved circumstances be able to retrieve that bit previously considered lost, and a debit entry would be made to the Tax Loss asset, thus increasing that asset, and the contra credit will be made to a special line-item shown after the Income-before-tax total, which in effect reduces tax that year in the Statutory Accounts. If this is not shown in two separate line items, there would be a note explaining the situation. In time the tax asset may drop to zero, and then the company starts paying the ATO again in the usual way.

NWH has gone through all the above machinations, and by now it probably has to pay tax in the usual way. As I wrote, I do not know for sure how a Gascoyne-type provision could be treated in the Statutory Accounts. If you Googled the “AASB” “provision for doubtful debts” you would find out, but I think latitude is allowed, so there is probably no clear-cut rule. If you looked at the relevant Annual Reports, you can see for yourself what actually happened.

An accountant could probably give you a less verbose and reliable answer. Pioupiou never allows ignorance to prevent him from giving a view. Also, the $31.2m mentioned may not be exclusively related to Gascoyne - I did not sleuth into that issue.