The AAT has refused to stay a decision of the Tax Practitioners Board to terminate the applicant’s registration as a tax agent and prohibit his registration for 5 years. The Board originally made its decision on the basis of finding that the applicant was not a “fit and proper person” to be registered as a tax agent as a result of him having twice been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 and have[ing] “knowingly and intentionally misrepresented himself as entitled to engage in legal practice”. He had also failed on 2 previous occasions to be registered as a tax agent, and disclose this.

In dismissing the applicant’s request for a stay of the Board’s decision, the AAT found that his submissions during the stay hearing where not focused on the reasons for the decision made by the Board that he was “not a fit and proper person”, but rather were focussed on “knowingly and intentionally misrepresented himself as entitled to engage in legal practice”. The Tribunal said it “indicated to the applicant that his integrity and honesty as a tax agent was of considerable concern … and permitting him to practice, pending the hearing of this review, could erode the professional standards and competence that the public should rightfully expect of tax agents who are registered and permitted to practice pursuant to the TASA”. As a result, the AAT refused to grant the stay in the interests of protecting the public – notwithstanding that the Board’s decision was pending review.

(AAT Case [2013] AATA 188, Re Frugtniet and Tax Practitioners Board,  AAT, Ref No 2013/717, Handley SM, 12 March 2013.)

[LTN 62, 3/4/13]

Would be tax agent appeals to Federal Court against failure to grant stay

The [would be] tax agent has lodged a notice of appeal to the Federal Court against the decision in AAT Case [2013] AATA 188, Re Frugtniet and Tax Practitioners Board. In that case, the AAT refused a request for a stay of the decision of the Tax Practitioners Board to terminate the applicant’s registration as a tax agent and prohibit his registration for 5 years. The Board originally made its decision on the basis of finding that the applicant was not a “fit and proper person” to be registered as a tax agent as a result of him having twice been found under the relevant provisions of the Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic) not to be a fit and proper person for admission to legal practice (and affirmed on appeal).

[LTN 67, 10/4]