The AAT has affirmed the decisions of the Tax Practitioners Board to terminate the applicant’s registration as a tax agent and to preclude him from applying for registration for a period of 5 years from the date of termination.

The agent had been registered since 1 January 2010 and sought renewal of his registration in November 2012. The Tax Practitioners Board Conduct Committee considered his application and resolved to terminate his registration as tax agent effective from 22 March 2013, and to preclude him from applying for registration for a period of 5 years from the date of termination. The Board determined that the agent ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement that he was a fit and proper person. The agent sought review of that decision.

The AAT said the Board carried out a preliminary inquiry into the agent’s affairs after publicity given to a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision in April 2011 that held that the Law Institute of Victoria was justified in finding that the agent should be a disqualified person for the purposes of Div 3 of Pt 2.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004. The Tax Practitioners Board became aware that the Board of Examiners, which deals with the applications of qualified persons to be admitted to practise law in Victoria, had previously found that the applicant was not a fit and proper person for admission to legal practise on 2 occasions.

The Tax Practitioners Board decided to investigate whether he was a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent and ultimately determined that he was not and terminated his registration.

The AAT considered the Board had properly complied with the Tax Agent Services Act in the conduct of its preliminary enquiry and subsequent investigation. The Tribunal found the agent failed to disclose to the Board when he applied for registration the Vic Board of Examiners decision, the VCAT decision, and 3 complaints received from his clients regarding his conduct when providing tax agent services eg discrepancies between tax refunds made by the ATO and those actually paid to the clients. In the result, the AAT found that the Board’s decisions were correct.

(AAT Case [2014] AATA 766, Re Frugtniet and Tax Practitioners Board, AAT, Fice SM, AAT Ref: 2013/0717, 23 October 2014.)

[LTN 207, 27/10/14]