On 9 Dec 2019, the AAT affirmed the decision of the Tax Practioners Board (TPB) not to register the applicant, because he had worked remotely and there was no evidence that had done relevant work “under the supervision and control” of a registered tax agent (who, incidentally was deregistered for lack of supervision).
The facts were these –
- For a number of years, the applicant worked for Tax Success Pty Ltd (either as a “casual employee” and/or a franchisee).
- In November 2020 he applied to the TPB for registration as a tax agent.
- The TPB, however, rejected his application as it was not satisfied that he had the relevant experience.
- The issue for the AAT was whether the applicant had, in terms of Item 207 of Sch 2 to the TAS Regs, done work “under the supervision and control” of a registered tax agent that included “substantial involvement” in one or more types of “tax agent services”.
- The applicant’s experience consisted of completing a total of 775 individual returns and 50 company returns.
- He would email the returns to Mr G, who was a director of Tax Success.
- Since the applicant worked in NSW and Mr G worked in WA, their communications were limited to email, “Zoom” and telephone calls.
The AAT said that there was no evidence that Mr G or someone else had checked the returns prepared by the applicant or that Mr G had told the applicant that he had checked those returns.
- In addition, a statement of relevant experience provided to the TPB by the applicant was not completed, as it should have been, by his supervisor.
- An email from Mr G stating that the applicant had enough experience and expertise to apply for registration as a tax agent carried very little weight because it was made by a person whose own registration was cancelled for, among other things, failing to have adequate arrangements in place to supervise employees.
(Thanabalasingam and Tax Practitioners Board [2021] AATA 5042, AAT, Reitano M, 9 December 2021.) [LTN 16, 27.1.22]
[Tax Month – January 2022 – Previous 2021] 27.1.22