Two applicants (a company and its sole director) have been unsuccessful before the AAT in a matter concerning the Tax Practitioners Board’s decisions refusing essentially their tax agent registration.
In October 2015, the Board rejected the application of the company applicant for renewal of its tax agent registration on the basis that the Board was not satisfied that the individual applicant (the company’s sole director and himself a tax agent) was a fit and proper person. As such the company applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for registration renewal under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TASA).
In February 2016, the Board decided to terminate the individual applicant’s registration as tax agent because it held he had ceased to meet the registration requirements that he be a fit and proper person.
The AAT heard the background to the Board’s decisions – which included, among other things, disputes with the ATO concerning outstanding tax liabilities (the AAT heard a settlement had been reached), failure to lodge various tax returns and BASs by their due dates over various periods, and convictions of offences under the TAA for failing to comply with written notices requiring lodgment of specified returns for various periods.
The AAT summarised the issues as follows:
- whether the individual applicant was a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of the TASA;
- whether the company applicant was eligible for registration as a tax agent pursuant to s 20-5(3) of the TASA; and
- whether the individual applicant’s registration as a tax agent should be terminated, pursuant to s 40-5(1)(b) of the TASA.
The AAT was not satisfied that the individual applicant was a “fit and proper person” for the purposes of the TASA, having regard to the individual’s “multiple acts of non-compliance with, and breaches of, the taxation laws in both his personal and director’s capacities; the lengthy period over which those acts occurred; the delay in addressing many issues and the fact that, even now, some issues still remain unresolved; and the absence, not only of a satisfactory explanation, but also of substantiation or corroboration of some of the claimed causative or contributing factors”. Accordingly, the AAT also held the company applicant was not eligible to register as a tax agent. In addition, it also confirmed the termination of the individual applicant’s tax agent registration.
(Re G J Brown & Co Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2016] AATA 740, AAT, File Nos 2015/6228, 2016/2116, Cotter SM, 23 September 2016.)
[AAT decision – AustLii] [LTN 187, 27/9/16]