The prevention of fraudulent phoenix activity is an increasing issue for the Australian Government and the loss of taxation revenue that results from these arrangments can be significant. For this reason, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has played a major role in the development of anti-phoenix regulation and, in particular, the 2012 amendments to the director penalty regime seemed largely aimed at that issue. Typically however, the ATO will have two competing roles in the context of phoenix arrangements, being the primary collector of Australian taxation revenue and also a major creditor in the resulting corporate insolvency. Therefore, two key questions arise – how pervasive should the ATO’s collection powers be and to what extent should they be used to control fraudulent phoenix activity if the ATO is competing for funds against other creditors in the limited pool available. This article argues that there are several competing policy imperatives relevant to controlling fraudulent phoenix activity, and that legislative responses should consider the ATO’s role as both creditor in insolvency and collector of taxation revenue. Furthermore, the roles of the ATO and ASIC in relation to combatting phoenix activity need to be clarified. This article suggests that a framework based on decentred regulation might provide a better approach.