The Federal Court has upheld the decision of the AAT in AAT Case [2013] AATA 188, Re Frugtniet and Tax Practitioners Board to refuse the tax agent’s request for a stay of the decision of the Tax Practitioners Board to terminate his registration for a period of 5 years.
In that case, the Tax Practitioners Board made its decision on the basis of finding that the tax agent was not a “fit and proper person” to be registered as a tax agent as a result of him having twice been found not to be a fit and proper person for admission to legal practice. The applicant had also been found by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal to have “knowingly and intentionally or wilfully misrepresented himself as a sole practitioner, entitled to engage in legal practice”.
On appeal to the Federal Court, the applicant argued, among other things, that the AAT failed to take relevant considerations into account in his original written submissions, in conjunction with the oral submissions made in the original hearing. He also claimed that the AAT erred in pre-determining the central issue to be determined in the substantive hearing in finding that he had been found to be a person who was not fit and proper and that he had failed to make disclosure of relevant matters to the Board in his application for registration.
However, in dismissing the applicant’s claim, the Federal Court found that the AAT’s refusal to grant the stay could not be said to determine the outcome of the substantive application for review to the AAT, and was not a “decision” for the purposes of review under s 44(1) of the AAT Act. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the applicant’s appeal was incompetent and must be dismissed.
(Frugtniet v Tax Practitioners Board [2013] FCA 752, Federal Court, Murphy J, 30 July 2013.)
[LTN 146, 31/7/13]