A tax agent has failed to overturn the Tax Practitioners Board’s decision to terminate her registration, although her “ban” was reduced from 5 to 4 years.This was by way of the 6.1.22 decision of the AAT on reviewing the TPB’s decision to deregister the Agent.
The facts were these.
- Ms C was registered as a tax agent in September 2017.
- In December 2020, the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) terminated Ms C’s registration as a tax agent because it was not satisfied that she was a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent.
- The TPB also imposed a 5-year “ban” on Ms C applying for re-registration.
The TPB reached its decision on the basis that Ms C had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to act with honesty and integrity and to comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of her personal affairs. The relevant conduct included:
- submitting false annual declarations to the TPB;
- failing to lodge tax returns for 2015, 2016 and 2017 so that she was receiving a higher social security benefit than she would have otherwise been entitled to;
- failing to declare all her assessable income for 2015, 2016 and 2017 when the returns were eventually lodged; and
- falsely representing in her 2018 annual declaration that she had met the TPB’s minimum continuing professional education (CPE) requirements.
The AAT upheld the TPB’s decision to terminate Ms C’s registration.
- It rejected Ms C’s contentions that the breaches of the Code of Conduct were careless or inadvertent.
- It was also not persuaded that the breaches could be excused by personal events in Ms C’s life (including the breakdown of her marriage, her son’s epilepsy diagnosis, a stroke in October 2016 and a car accident in April 2017).
- The AAT considered that much of her evidence was “self-serving, self-interested and uncorroborated”.
- The AAT then confirmed that as the breaches of the Code of Conduct involved “dishonesty” in dealings with the TPB and failing to comply with taxation laws in the conduct of her own affairs, Ms C was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to be registered as a tax agent.
- However, her “ban” was reduced from 5 to 4 years. Although a significant preclusion period was justified in the AAT’s opinion, it was slightly shorter than it might otherwise have been because of Ms C’s personal circumstances.
(Cerrah v Tax Practitioners Board [2022] AATA 7, AAT, Reitano M, 6 January 2022.) [LTN 3, 7/1/22]
[Tax Month – January 2022 – Previous 2021] 7.1.22