Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation) - [2025] ARTA 2028

Cavallaro and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation) [2025] ARTA 2028 (29 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Maria Cavallaro
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0375

Applicant/s:  Alliance Accounting & Business Consultants Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0376
Applicant/s:  Tradie Troopers Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2025/0377
Tribunal:Administrative Review Tribunal
Place:Sydney
Date: 29 September 2025

Decision:

In respect of each of application 2025/0375, 2025/0376 and 2025/0377 the decision of the Board made 20 December 2024 is varied to read as follows:
(a) Registration of the first applicant is terminated pursuant to s 40-5(1)(b) of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TAS Act) and registration of the second and third applicants is terminated pursuant to s 40-15(1)(b) of the TAS Act.
(b) Termination takes effect 60 days after the date of these orders.
(c) Pursuant to s 40-25 of the TAS Act, the applicants may not apply for registration for a period of 1 years from the date termination takes effect pursuant to order (b).

...............[SGD].........................................................
Senior Member Mark Harrowell
Catchwords
TAXATION – Regulation and discipline – Termination of registration as tax agent
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Stay of decision pending determination of proceedings – applicable principles
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (repealed)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)- ss 18, 32
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Tax Agents Services Act 2009 (Cth)- ss 20-24, 30-10, 40-5
Cases
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Burnett; Kerin; Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board (2011) 85 ATR 635
Cross and Tax Practitioners Board [2021] AATA 441
Denton and Tax Agents’ Board of South Australia (1983) 83 ATC 4009; (1983) 13 ATR 921
Fidock v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 108
Grosfeld and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 100
Hall v Poolman [2007] NSWSC 1330; 215 FLR 343
Ham v Tax Practitioners Board [2018] FCA 1652; 108 ATR 869
Kishore and Tax Practitioners Board [2017] AATA 271
Sovereign Capital Limited and Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2008] AATA 901
Stasos v Tax Agents’ Board [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ALD 437
Su v. Tax Agents Board of South Australia [1982] AATA 127; (1982) 13 ATR 192
Secondary Materials
Code of Professional Conduct TPB 01/2010

REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
These reasons relate to review of three decisions of the respondent, the Tax Practitioners Board (Board), made under the Tax Agents Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TAS Act).
The applicants are:
(a)Maria Cavallaro (Ms Cavallaro), application 2025/0375;
(b)Alliance Accounting & Business Consultants Pty Ltd (Alliance Accounting), application 2025/0376; and
(c)Tradie Troopers Pty Ltd (Tradie Troopers), application 2025/0377.
Collectively, I will refer to Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers as the “Companies”.
Each applicant is registered as a tax agent. Ms Cavallaro is the director of the Companies.
By decisions made 20 December 2024 (collectively Decisions) the Board decided that each applicant’s registration should be terminated. Further, the Board decided each applicant could not apply for registration under that TAS Act for a period of 2 years from the date the termination of registration takes effect.
In connection with Ms Cavallaro the following decision was made (Cavallaro decision):[1]
On 5 December 2024, the Board decided that you, Ms Maria Cavallaro, failed to comply with subsections 30‑10(1) and 30‑10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) in the TASA.
Further, the Board determined it was satisfied that you had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA in that you are not a fit and proper person within the meaning of the TASA.
As such, the Board decided to terminate your registration as a tax agent in accordance with subparagraph 60-125(2)(b)(ii) and paragraph 40-5(1)(b) of the TASA, on the basis that you ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.
The termination will take effect from 24/01/2025.
The Board also decided under section 40-25(1) of the TASA that you may not apply for registration under the TASA for a period of two years from the date the termination of your registration takes effect.
From the date of effect of this termination, you must not provide tax agent services for fee or reward in your own name, or advertise tax agent services, or represent that you are a registered tax agent when you are not. Civil penalties may apply.
[1] TB 1320 and following
In connection with Alliance Accounting the following decision was made (Alliance Accounting decision):[2]
On 5 December 2024, the Board decided that the company, Alliance Accounting & Business Consultants Pty Limited, failed to comply with subsections 30‑10(1) and 30‑10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) in the TASA.
Further, the Board determined it was satisfied that the company, Alliance Accounting & Business Consultants Pty Limited, had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA that the director of the company must be a fit and proper person.
As such, the Board decided to terminate the company's registration as a tax agent in accordance with subparagraph 60-125(2)(b)(ii) and paragraph 40-15(1)(b) of the TASA, on the basis that the company ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.
The termination will take effect from 24/01/2025.
The Board also decided under section 40-25(1) of the TASA that the company may not apply for registration under the TASA for a period of two years from the date the termination of the company's registration takes effect.
From the date of effect of this termination, the company must not provide tax agent services for fee or reward in its own name, or advertise tax agent services, or represent that the company is a registered tax agent when they are not. Civil penalties may apply.
[2] TB 1366 and following
In connection with Tradie Troopers the following decision was made (Tradie Troopers decision):[3]
On 5 December 2024, the Board decided that the company, Tradie Troopers Pty Ltd, failed to comply with subsections 30‑10(1) and 30‑10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) in the TASA.
Further, the Board determined it was satisfied that the company, Tradie Troopers Pty Ltd, had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA that the director of the company must be a fit and proper person.
As such, the Board decided to terminate the company's registration as a tax agent in accordance with subparagraph 60-125(2)(b)(ii) and paragraph 40-15(1)(b) of the TASA, on the basis that the company ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.
The termination will take effect from 24/01/2025.
The Board also decided under section 40-25(1) of the TASA that the company may not apply for registration under the TASA for a period of two years from the date the termination of the Company's registration takes effect.
From the date of effect of this termination the company must not provide tax agent services for fee or reward in its own name, or advertise tax agent services, or represent that it is a registered tax agent when it is not. Civil penalties may apply.
[3] TB 1390 and following
By applications dated 17 January 2025 (applications) the applicants sought review of the Decisions by this Tribunal pursuant to s 70-10 of the TAS Act. The applications were filed in time, that is within 28 days of the Decisions as required by s 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (Act), there being no different time prescribed by the rules.
The applicants obtained a stay of the Decisions pending a determination of these proceedings. The following orders were made on 25 February 2025:
Pursuant to section 32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024 (Cth), the Tribunal orders that:
1The operation of the Respondent’s decisions dated 5 December 2024, in each of the aforementioned matters, is stayed until the determination of the respective application for review or until further order of the Tribunal, whichever occurs first;
2Order 1 is subject to the following conditions:
(a)each Applicant agrees not to engage any new clients (including any related entities of existing clients), unless there was a formal retainer in place with that client on or before 23 January 2025; and
(b)the Applicants must inform their existing clients that the Respondent has made decisions terminating their tax agent registrations along with details of the Respondent’s findings and decisions, and that these decisions have been stayed pending final determination of the applications for review by the Tribunal, by:
(i) sending a letter in a form as agreed by the parties to existing clients by 7 March 2025; and
(ii) providing the Respondent a list of existing clients to whom the letter was issued (or copies of the letters/emails sent) and if relevant, a list of existing clients to whom the letter was not issued, including the reason the letter was not issued by 14 March 2025.
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
Ms Cavallaro has been a practising accountant since 1994. She is a registered tax agent.
Ms Cavallaro is the sole director of each of Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers. Alliance Accounting was registered on 5 July 1999. Tradie Troopers was registered on 11 November 2014. Both companies are registered tax agents. Collectively I will refer to the accounting business operated by Ms Cavallaro and the Companies as the “tax agent businesses”.
In addition to providing accounting and tax agent services to members of the public, Ms Cavallaro is also a director of various family companies which own property and conduct numerous businesses throughout New South Wales. Her tax agent businesses provide services to these companies of which she is a director, as well as other family companies of which her father is a director. Those companies operate through various structures including trusts. Collectively, I will refer to these as the “family businesses”.
A number of issues have arisen in these proceedings in connection with the businesses conducted by Ms Cavallaro or in which she is involved and her conduct as a tax agent and/or a director. They can be summarised as follows:
(a)lodgement of tax agent declarations with the Board which record incorrect or false information or which are incomplete and/or have not been signed by Ms Cavallaro as the declarant.
(b)failure to lodge or the late lodgement of income tax returns and activity statements, and to failure to comply with superannuation obligations with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in connection with the family businesses;
(c)failure to lodge or late lodgement of income tax returns and activity statements for Ms Cavallaro, the tax agent businesses themselves and clients of the tax agent businesses with the ATO;
(d)failure to pay or causing to be paid to the ATO on a timely basis amounts due in connection with taxation obligations, including in connection with income tax and activity statement payments. These failures have also involved the imposition of penalties by the ATO.
In relation to the lodgement of incorrect or false tax agent declarations (paragraph 13(a) above), these claims relate to declarations provided to the Board by or on behalf of Ms Cavallaro for various years between June 2016 and July 2021.[4]
[4] TB 2284 paragraph 14 and following
As to the failure to lodge or late lodgement events identified in 13(b) and (c) above, these are particularised in the schedule entitled “Table of Failures” which became an exhibit in the proceedings as identified below.[5]
[5] the original Table of Failures was attached to the respondent's statement of facts, issues and contentions, with updated versions of the table being provided to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings as noted in the reasons below. Some became exhibits
As to debts owing to the ATO (paragraph 13(c), the amounts, dates and person or entity owing these sums is detailed in the Board’s statement of facts, issues and contentions.[6]
[6] TB 2293, paragraph 38 and following
The fact of these occurrences is not generally in dispute. However, Ms Cavallaro says a number of matters impacted her and the Companies which are relevant in considering what, if any, action should be taken against them under the TAS Act.
The first matter was the fraudulent conduct of an employee of the tax agent businesses who misappropriated funds of the family businesses for which Ms Cavallaro and her companies were providing accounting services. The fraudulent conduct involved entering invoices of fake suppliers into the accounting system, payments for which was made into the bank account of the employee. The total amount involved was apparently in excess of $600,000. The fraud was discovered by Ms Cavallaro in 2015 and subsequently reported to the police.
The employee was a personal friend of Ms Cavallaro who subsequently died in tragic circumstances, the detail of which is not necessary to set out in these reasons.
The second matter was the death in 2018 of Ms Cavallaro’s brother in an accident while overseas. This necessitated Ms Cavallaro and her family travelling overseas in order to return her brother to Australia.
Each of the first and second matters resulted in Ms Cavallaro suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for which she received counselling and medical treatment, details of which are summarised below.
The third matter was a ransomware attack on the computerised accounting files of the tax agent businesses. The attack occurred in February 2021. This resulted in all files in the computer system being encrypted and rendered inaccessible. This included tax returns and other financial statements that had been prepared or were being prepared for clients. The impact was compounded when, in an attempt to restore files, the IT provider to the tax agent businesses connected the backup data to the accounting system. At this time the backup data was also encrypted and became inaccessible. Despite engaging third-party IT consultants and providing a copy of the data to the ATO to assist in trying to decrypt the files, access has not been restored.
The fourth matter was the Covid 19 pandemic (pandemic). Of this event, Ms Cavallaro said[7] :
40. In addition to this [referring to the ransomware attack], COVID had an enormous adverse effect on the business due to staffing.
41. This placed a serious amount of stress on myself and the business during the last few years. I worked over 70 hours per week for at least 3 years with no time off, to get the business back in order.
42. I engaged a team of 7 bookkeepers to re-key in all the data for my clients from source documentation from 2015 to date, whilst continuing to run the business and employ the team.
43. This has resulted in further costs to the business which were not anticipated.
[7] Cavallaro statement TB 2359 at paragraphs 40-43
The fifth matter involved issues concerning Ms Cavallaro’s relationship with her former partner in the period 2020 to 2022 and various incidents involving herself and her son. Again, the detail is not necessary to set out in these reasons.
The sixth matter was the medical health treatment Ms Cavallaro obtained for her PTSD and to deal with the traumatic personal circumstances set out above. This included counselling from psychologists and treatment by her General Practitioner. The treatment by psychologists commenced in 2017, the last counselling session being in 2024.
As noted above, the Board decided that the applicants had failed to comply with subsections 30-10 (1) and 30-10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) in the TAS Act and that Ms Cavallaro, in her personal capacity and in her capacity as a director of the Companies, was not a fit and proper person within the meaning of the TAS Act. As such, each of the applicants ceased to meet the requirements for registration as a registered tax agent. Consequently, the Board decided to terminate the respective registrations in accordance with subsection 60-125 (2)(b)(ii) of the TAS Act and determined, under section 40-25(1), that each of the applicants could not apply for registration for a period of 2 years from the date of termination.
As to the contention in these proceedings that the applicants failed to comply with s 30-10(1) of the Code, which is the obligation to “act honestly and with integrity”, the applicants say[8] :
2.12 To the extent that it is alleged by the [respondent] that Ms Cavallaro made false statements intentionally or recklessly, this is denied by Ms Cavallaro. Ms Cavallaro explains that misleading statements were the result of an oversight and a failure on her part to check the accuracy of statements prepared by her PA. Ms Cavallaro accepts responsibility for the making of the misleading statements but denies there was any attempt to mislead:…
2.13 In relation to the making of false statements, the [respondent] did not consider the question of intent and consequently no findings were made that any of Ms Cavallaro’s conduct was intentional or that she deliberately, or with reckless indifference, made any false statements.
[8] Applicants' submissions dated 21 May 2025 para 2.12-2.13
The applicants contend Ms Cavallaro “has not failed to comply with the Code of Professional Conduct, and that her conduct has not been dishonest, in breach of subs 30-10(1)” of the TAS Act.[9] Further, the applicants contend the evidence demonstrates Ms Cavallaro continues to be a fit and proper person.[10]
[9] Applicants' statement of facts, issues and contentions para 3a
[10] Applicants' statement of facts, issues and contentions para 3b
As to the matter of honesty and integrity, the Board made clear that it was not asserting Ms Cavallaro had knowingly made or authorised the making of any false statement. However, the Board did say that there was a failure to act honestly and with integrity and the actions of Ms Cavallaro involved recklessness and carelessness.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The proceedings were listed for a four-day hearing commencing 2 June 2025. At the hearing, the applicants were represented by Mr Moujalli of Counsel. Ms Ensor with Ms Alroe of Counsel represented the Board.
The following became exhibits in the proceedings:
(a)Exhibit J – Joint Tender Bundle (tender bundle/TB);
(b)Exhibit A – bundle of ATO documents regarding Mr Jim Spinoulas;
(c)Exhibit B – bundle of ATO documents regarding South Bexley Service Centre Pty Ltd;
(d)Exhibit C – bundle of ATO documents regarding Anmaro Management Pty Ltd;
(e)Exhibit D – bundle of emails between Ms Cavallaro and the ATO;
(f)Exhibit E – document entitled “Table of Failures” (in markup) as at 4 June 2025 being an update of the schedule attached to the Board’s submissions;
(g)Exhibit F – document entitled “Table of Failures” (no markup) as at 4 June 2025;
(h)Exhibit G – bundle of ATO documents regarding Ms Cavallaro and various trustees and companies.
The Tribunal was also provided with a transcript of the hearing (transcript/TS). I note there were some problems with the sound recording, including the absence of a transcript for part of day 1 of the hearing.
Ms Cavallaro, Mr Spinoulas and Mr Baissari provided written statements and gave oral evidence for the applicants and were cross examined. Ms Parlato provided a written statement for the applicants but failed to attend for cross examination. The written statements are found in volume 4 of the tender bundle.

Mr Spinoulas and Baissari carry on businesses that use the services of the tax agent businesses. Both have known Ms Cavallaro for a number of years, both through her work and socially.
Ms Parlato previously worked for Ms Cavallaro in various capacities, including in this Cavallaro’s accounting business and earlier in a telecommunications business. She is a client of Ms Cavallaro as is a company for whom Ms Parlato does bookkeeping work. She has known Ms Cavallaro for 20 years, including socially.
All of Mr Spinoulas and Baissari and Ms Parlato provided evidence concerning their dealings with Ms Cavallaro and the Companies, the work performed (including timeliness) and the competence of Ms Cavallaro.
The Board did not call any witnesses, relying upon the documentary material referred to above.
The parties provided written submissions and made oral submissions at the hearing. Each also provided a statement of fact, issues and contentions (SFICs).
At the conclusion of the hearing, directions were made permitting the applicants to provide an updated response to Exhibit F (Table of Failures), such update to reflect what the applicants say is the position as at 4 June 2025. This was provided by email to the Tribunal (copied to the Board) dated 16 June 2025.
Directions were also made permitting the parties to provide further submissions concerning what, if any, sanctions should be imposed.
As necessary, this material will be referred to below.
Evidence of Mr Baissari
Mr Baissari operates a pest control business known as Term Build Pty Ltd.
Ms Baissari gave evidence as to his dealings with Ms Cavallaro and the Companies in the circumstances in which they met.[11] This evidence included expressing his confidence in Ms Cavallaro to rectify problems which had arisen in the management of his tax affairs.[12]
[11] TB 2523 and following
[12] TB 2525 at paragraph [37] and following
In cross examination, Mr Baissari was asked about whether he was kept informed of communications Ms Cavallaro had with the ATO in about July 2024. His attention was drawn to a letter from the ATO dated 17 July 2024, being a final warning letter in connection with the overdue lodgement of his company’s income tax return for the year ending 30 June 2023 and activity statements for the quarters ending 30 September 2022 and 31 December 2022.[13]
[13] TB 2251-2
The following exchange occurred:
Ms Ensor:
Have you seen this document before?
Mr Baissari:
No. I haven’t.
Ms Ensor:
Mr Baissari, in or around July 2024, did Ms Cavallaro tell you, that Turnbuild (sic) was at risk of prosecution – by the ATO – if it did not lodge overdue documents with the ATO?
Mr Baissari:
No.
Ms Ensor:
Are you aware, that the ATO has imposed penalties on Turnbuild (sic)?
Mr Baissari:
I understand, a little bit of penalties, but no. Not like this, no. Nothing – not final warnings. Yes.
Ms Ensor:
Are you aware, that as of May this year – so last month – that, are you aware, that as of early May this year, Turnbuild (sic) owed over $7,000, in penalties to the ATO?
Mr Baissari:
No. I don’t know that.
Ms Ensor:
Has Ms Cavallaro told you – at any stage – that the ATO has imposed penalties on Turnbuild (sic)?
Mr Baissari:
Yes. I know that there was penalties. I was aware of some penalties put down, but definitely not for that circumstance.
Ms Ensor:
When did Ms Cavallaro tell you that there were penalties put down?
Mr Baissari:
I can’t remember much. Cannot remember, but I know I remember her telling me something about the penalties.
Ms Ensor:
Was it in the last year?
Mr Baissari:
No. Or – yes, maybe. Maybe. I – I – I – generally can’t remember exactly, unless you told me. But I remember her telling me something about getting penalised, about certain stuff.
As to evidence Mr Baissari gave that Ms Cavallaro had “dropped the ball in some circumstances”[14] , Mr Baissari said in re examination:[15]
Yes. I – I – I say that, because I understand, that people have some things in life, and struggles, and go through things, where work doesn’t become a priority anymore. And they’ve got other more important things to worry about. And people do drop the ball. I know for myself – that happens to me a lot. When you’ve got families, sick friends, what – whatever circumstances it is, I understand. But overall, I know she’s a good person, and does the right thing, wherever she goes. Or tries to do the right thing, at least. But as I said, no one is perfect. So, yes, so that’s where I understand – my understanding that she has dropped the ball. But I clearly understand. I’m not upset at her, and I’m just happy for her to be my accountant, because I generally think she’s a great accountant.
[14] TS 18 line 10
[15] TS 19 line 1
Evidence of Ms Cavallaro
Ms Cavallaro provided two statements. The first is founded TB 2359 (Ms Cavallaro’s first statement). This statement is undated but was signed on 4 April 2025.[16] The second statement is found at TB 2514 (Ms Cavallaro’s second statement). This statement is also undated but was signed sometime in May 2025.[17]
[16] TS 77 line 32
[17] TS 77 line 35
In Ms Cavallaro’s first statement, she gives evidence as to her qualifications, her years of experience as an accountant and tax agent, the issues that have arisen in her business about which the Board has enquired and made the Decisions, her personal circumstances and the impact that has had on her professional responsibilities and her work with the ATO to rectify the failings which have occurred.
As to meeting her professional responsibilities, in Ms Cavallaro’s first statement she says:[18]
[18] TB 2365 paragraph 71 and following
71. The circumstances I experienced affected my ability to work and to adhere to the high professional obligations I hold myself to and which are expected of me.
72. I often recall days when I would not be able to do any work.
73. I do not and cannot deny that there have been serious professional failings on my part. I can only explain these professional failings as being as (sic) result of my personal stressful circumstances as explained above.
74. Since failing to lodge returns, pay taxes and making a false statements I have committed myself and many of my employees to work tirelessly to rectify the situation.
75. In regard to the full statements referred to in the Board’s decisions, I do not deny that full statements were made. However, they were not made intentionally in an attempt to deliberately mislead or evade my professional obligations or any tax liabilities. The full statements were made as a result of an administrative error or oversight. When lodging my annual declarations and applying for renewal of my registration, my personal assistant, Sandy, lodged the declarations and did not check whether the answers were accurate or not.
76. She just ticked the boxes in preparing the declarations and renewals and did not even think about whether or not the answers were accurate as she did not know the true position. Sandy is my personal assistant and has been for 14 years.
77. I admit and accept that as a professional it was my responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the declarations and renewals. This is something I should have checked and failed to. This was not because of any intention to mislead, but rather, during a period of high stress and being overwhelmed, I failed to exercise the due diligence required of me which led to the administrative oversight.
78. When I personally completed the annual declarations, the answers provided by me were true and accurate because I knew the status of my affairs and the affairs of the entities in which I am involved.
79. I apologise to the Board for the misleading impressions created by the declarations and renewals which were not checked by me. In the future, I will personally check all my annual declarations and renewal (sic) to the Board to ensure the accuracy.
On the question of working with the ATO she says:[19]
I have been working directly with the ATO since November last year arranging a lodgement plan and discussing directly with them the payment of which taxation debts are most important. These are done on a monthly basis and updated accordingly. Attached and marked Annexure “J” is a copy of the Proposed Monthly Lodgement Plans and covering emails.
[19] TB 2366 at paragraph 82
Of the late lodgement of returns and the corrective action taken, Ms Cavallaro says:[20]
89. There are still approximately 1000 returns that need to be lodged but my business is able to get through about 170 lodgement a month.
90. In order to do this as efficiently as possible I have also hired additional employees to work directly with my business to ensure we are compliant and doing everything we can to fix the situation.
91. Most of the returns of entities to which I provide accounting services are now up-to-date. It is primarily the BAS and returns of the entities referred to within the Board’s letters that are outstanding.
92. I have been actively paying off the taxation debts owed to the ATO.
93. Working directly with … the ATO I have arranged an application to the bank to refinance and release funds just to be able to pay the taxation debts that are owed.
94. Following the data breach I and my employees have also worked tirelessly to key in all of the data that was lost.
95. Upon request of the ATO, I disclosed the extent of all of the returns and debts that were outstanding and granted the ATO complete and total access to all of the data and information contained within our servers.
96. There is still much work to be done to rectify the late lodgement is however I am confident that by following the ATO’s lodgement plans I and my business will be able to have completely finalised any outstanding returns by September this year.
[20] TB 2367 at paragraphs 89-96
In Ms Cavallaro’s second statement, she provides further medical evidence from her GP concerning recent treatment. The statement also annexed more recent correspondence with the ATO regarding monthly lodgement plans and ongoing discussions concerning paying off debts owed to the ATO.
Ms Cavallaro was cross examined on various aspects of their evidence and what occurred in connection with compliance with the tax agent obligations of her and the Companies.
The renewal declarations
The renewal declarations said by the Board to be false or misleading and the respects in which they are said to be false or misleading, are identified in the Cavallaro decision under the heading “Decision on 30-10(1) of the Code”.[21] These relate to declarations made in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021. Copies of the relevant declarations are contained in the tender bundle.[22]
[21] TB 1335
[22] part of the s 23 documents marked T5 commencing TB 37
They variously bear the name of Ms Cavallaro or Ms Sandy Baissari as the person making the declaration. These names are typed in the declarations rather than signatures being affixed. Ms Cavallaro’s name is variously typed as Maria Cavallaro and Maria Grazia Cavallaro.
Ms Sandy Baissari is an employee of the tax agent businesses. Where her name is typed, her position is stated as “Office Manager”.[23]
[23] an example of Ms Baissari signing a declaration as "Office Manager" is the Alliance Accounting declaration submitted 6 August 2019 – TB 768-771
The form of the declarations has changed over time. For example, the 2017 declaration for Alliance Accounting, which bore Ms Cavallaro’s name, states:[24]
[24] TB 761
in 2021, the declaration for Alliance Accounting, which bore Ms Cavallaro’s name, states:[25]
[25] TB 777-8
Examples of declarations for Ms Cavallaro’s personal renewal applications for the same years, 2017 and 2021, are found at TB 228 and 234-5.
I note that the fact Ms Cavallaro’s name was subscribed to these documents does not mean she in fact signed or completed them- there being evidence that Ms Baissari subscribed Ms Cavallaro’s name to some declarations with the authority of Ms Cavallaro. In this regard, Ms Cavallaro was uncertain as to whether she or Ms Baissari completed and submitted particular declarations.[26] On the other hand, Ms Baissari was not called as a witness to give evidence about what she did and what instructions and information was provided to her by Ms Cavallaro in respect of these tasks.
[26] See eg TS 89 line 36
In cross examination, Ms Cavallaro was asked questions concerning others completing renewal declarations on her behalf and on behalf of the Companies as tax agents. This evidence included the following exchange:[27]
[27] TS 91 line 34 and following
Ms Ensor:
Ms Cavallaro, did you authorise any other person to hard type your (audio malfunction) into declarations to be made to the Tax Practitioner’s Board?
Ms Cavallaro:
I’m so sorry, can you repeat that?
Ms Ensor:
Of course. Have you ever authorised any other human to hard type in your name on a declaration to the Tax Practitioner’s Board as the person making the declaration?
Ms Cavallaro:
The only person that I would ever allow to do something like that is Sandy. There’s be absolutely – other than my sister, there would be absolutely no other person that would be allowed to do that.
Ms Ensor:
And the sister you refer to, is that Antoinetta?
Ms Cavallaro:
Antoinetta, that’s correct.
Ms Ensor:
And did you give Ms Baissari authority to type your name into the box about, ‘Full name of person making a declaration,’ in declarations to the Tax Practitioner’s Board on your behalf?
Ms Cavallaro:
I honestly do not remember. Hand on heart, I do not remember.
Ms Ensor:
Did you give your sister authority to hard type your name into declarations made to the Tax Practitioner’s Board on your behalf?
Ms Cavallaro:
No, Antoinetta has never done an annual declaration for me.
Ms Ensor:
Ms Cavallaro, where you gave Ms Baissari to complete documents on your behalf – or maybe I should take a step back – when did Ms Baissari commence working for you?
Ms Cavallaro:
She’s been with me over 15 years, so I don’t remember the exact date that she started, but she has been with me quite some time.
Ms Ensor:
And when did you first give her authority to prepare documents on your behalf to be lodged with the Tax Practitioner’s Board?
Ms Cavallaro:
Over 10 years ago that she would have started doing that. Because initially, she was a receptionist. Again, not a specific date, but I could confidently say over 10 years ago.
Ms Ensor:
And when you first gave her authority to prepare documents on your behalf to go to the Tax Practitioner’s Board, what was the process for her to prepare those documents?
Ms Cavallaro:
I would get the renewal in my email, and I would forward it to her to action.
As to completion of the section concerning whether the declarant was a fit and proper, the following answers were given:[28]
Ms Ensor:
Now, the above events are directed at the particular human who is the registered tax agent, and you’ll see they include things like whether or not the person has been, ‘undischarged, bankrupt, served a term of imprisonment, convicted of serious taxation offence, being convicted of an offense involving fraud or dishonesty,’ et cetera, et cetera, the list goes on. So you’ve just said that you would receive an email with an application for renewal and you would send it to Ms Baissari for her to prepare, and this was from the time at which roughly (audio malfunction) gave her authority to prepare the document. What information would you give her to enable her to answer the fit and proper question on (audio malfunction)?
Ms Cavallaro:
I don’t believe I would have given her any information.
[28] TS 92 line 46 and following
Ms Cavallaro then gave evidence concerning discussion she had with a person she identified as Mr Paul Sleeman from the Board concerning incorrect completion of the renewal declarations. The following exchange then occurred:[29]
[29] TS 94 line 33 and following
Ms Ensor:
Ms Cavallaro, you’ve agreed, I think, that this declaration part of this page, you understand that that’s a standard part that’s included in each of the annual declarations?
Ms Cavallaro :
I understand that now, absolutely, I do.
Ms Ensor:
Are you saying that you didn’t previously realise that the, ‘Annual declaration,’ which is what the document is headed, but if you turn back a page, required you to make a declaration to the Tax Practitioner's Board?
Ms Cavallaro:
No. Like I said to you, when these forms were done each year, I didn’t go and review them, so I completely didn’t even remember that that was on there. But when it was brought to my attention, I told Paul that they had been completed incorrectly, I admitted to that, and I (audio malfunction) that it wasn’t done because I was lying or Sandy was lying, it was done in error. So to answer your question, did I know that when she was completing it that she was writing, no, and I was deliberately misleading the ATO? The answer is absolutely no, I was not doing that.
Ms Ensor:
When you received the emails containing this declaration to be completed?
Ms Cavallaro:
Yes.
Ms Ensor:
Did you open the attachment to the email?
Ms Cavallaro :
Probably not. I would have flicked it to Sandy as a (audio malfunction).
Ms Ensor:
Ms Cavallaro, at all times that you have been a registered tax agent, you knew that it is a requirement to continue being a registered tax agent that you needed to be a fit and proper person, didn’t you?
Ms Cavallaro:
Yes.
Ms Ensor:
And you knew at all times that you were a registered tax agent that you needed to make annual declarations (audio malfunction) in order to meet that continuing registration requirement. So when you received the annual email attaching an annual declaration and you forwarded that to Ms Baissari, you knew that that attachment required you to make a declaration to the Tax Practitioners Board?
Ms Cavallaro :
Yes.
Finally, when asked whether she checked the declaration once prepared by Ms Baissari, Ms Cavallaro said “No”.[30]
[30] TS 96 line 4
As to the explanation about why these events happened, Ms Cavallaro provided the following answers”:[31]
[31] TS 126 line 24 and following
Member:
Can you just explain to me or help me to understand how it is that the same sorts of problems keep arising?
Well, in 2017 I was barely functioning because I was – had PTSD because [of the death of her employee]. In 2018, I had just lost my brother in a drowning accident. And in 2021 I was trying desperately to get (audio malfunction) every bit of data that we had on that server. We’ve even given that server to the ATO to try and get their IT department to unencrypt it for us.
Member:
I’m just trying to understand that when the forms are obviously very important forms?
Ms Cavallaro:
Yes, they are, most definitely.
Member:
To understand how it is that over so many years incorrect information gets recorded?
Ms Cavallaro:
I can only say to you, sir, that it’s because of those times that I just was not functioning, and I take responsibility for them. I don’t blame Sandy; it’s something that I should have ensured was done correctly.
As to the current position, and the role of Ms Baissari, Ms Cavallaro gave the following evidence:[32]
[32] TS 130 line 39 and following
Member:
Can I just ask, does she still work for you?
Ms Cavallaro:
Yes, she does.
Member:
You say she still has authority to complete the documents?
Ms Cavallaro:
Not anymore after this. I’ll be doing them myself.
Member:
As of today does she have authority or not?
Ms Cavallaro:
Yes, she does.
Member:
When did you first become aware of the problems with these declarations?
Ms Cavallaro:
I think it would have been late last year initially when I was contacted by (audio malfunction) disclosed and obviously (audio malfunction) ask me to go back and have a look at all this documentation and was asking me for paperwork.
Member:
At that point in time did you say anything to them about – to the Board about any errors, or were you just waiting to see what they would do?
Ms Cavallaro:
No, I (audio malfunction) and when we went through it I told him that they were incorrect. So, no, I didn’t wait until today or (audio malfunction). This was before I got the notification that there was a termination of tax agent (audio malfunction).
Personal tax affairs and those of the family businesses

Ms Cavallaro was cross examined about her role as a director of companies in the family businesses and her understanding of what that involved.
The evidence discloses that:
(a)Ms Cavallaro held the position of director and secretary in various companies forming part of the family businesses, as well as in Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers.
(b)Ms Cavallaro understood she could resign any of the positions that she held in companies forming part of the family businesses.[33]
(c)various companies in the family businesses and the tax agent businesses of which Ms Cavallaro was a director and/or secretary, failed to lodge income tax returns and/or activity statements and/or comply with other tax obligations including paying amounts due to the ATO.[34]
(d)One such example was Coonabarabran Supermarket Pty Ltd which failed to lodge income tax returns on time for the 2016-2023 financial years and failed to lodge 25 activity statements on time.[35] Ms Cavallaro became the sole director and secretary of this company in April 2016 and continued to hold these positions, at least until 21 June 2024.[36] Another example is Carlo's Supa IGA Mount Tambourine Pty Ltd. This company failed to lodge income tax returns by the due date on 13 occasions being for the years 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2023.[37]
(e)Some companies in the family businesses and/or the tax services businesses of which Ms Cavallaro was a director or secretary owe or have owed substantial debts to the ATO.[38] The total, Ms Cavallaro says, is presently “around $4 million”.[39]
(f)Ms Cavallaro also owes the ATO significant sums in connection with director penalties as at 4 June 2025.[40]
[33] TS 80 line 28
[34] see the Decisions and the attachments to the submission to the Tax Practitioners Board prepared following enquiry founded at TB 22 and following
[35] TS 144 lines 27-30
[36] TB 162 – ASIC search dated 21 June 2024
[37] TB 1344 Cavallaro decision paragraph i(ii).
[38] see e.g. Carlo's Supa IGA Mount Tambourine Pty Ltd which failed to pay on time amounts in excess of $1 million: Cavallaro decision TB 1344 paragraph i (i). Tradie Troopers which failed to pay on time various amounts including a debt of more than $170,000: Cavallaro decision TB 1343 paragraph b (i).
[39] TS 276 line 32
[40] the applicants’ updated exhibit F – Table of Failures, provided after conclusion of the hearing, quantifies the present outstanding penalty amounts as in excess of $380,000
These matters are not in dispute. Of the conduct recorded in the Decisions, the applicant says:[41]
In arriving at its decision, the Respondent has referred to a series of misconduct that [Ms Cavallaro] committed in contravention of the [TAS Act]. Other than the finding that [Ms Cavallaro] failed to act honestly (discussed further below), [Ms Cavallaro] does not dispute the misconduct on which the Respondent has based its decision.
[41] applicants SFICs, Introduction at paragraph 2 – TB 2351
In connection with monies owed to the ATO, Ms Cavallaro gave evidence that these amounts were being paid off. At present, additional finance is still being sought.[42]
[42] see Exhibit E page 18
In connection with lodgement of overdue returns in relation to the family businesses and the tax agent businesses, Ms Cavallaro gave evidence concerning lodgement programs which had been agreed by the ATO and her meetings with the ATO about these matters. The correspondence, being Exhibit D, relates to the period February 2025 until April 2025. It is apparent that these programs have continued to be adjusted, and time extended for the lodgement of various returns.
Ms Cavallaro suggested in cross examination that agreed dates were not met because of changes due to requests from the ATO in respect of priorities for lodgement which the ATO had assigned.[43] However, Exhibit D suggests otherwise.[44]
[43] TS 236 lines 33-36
[44] see e.g. Exhibit D page 2-email from Ms Cavallaro to ATO dated 24 Fairbury 2025; page 15 email from Ms Cavallaro to ATO dated 23 April 2025
Ms Cavallaro gave the following further evidence in cross examination:
(a)while she had some capacity to attend to her professional obligations and run her businesses, during the period 2015 until 2022 Ms Cavallaro was affected by the personal events concerning her employee and his death and the death of her brother referred to above:[45]
(b)during that period, Ms Cavallaro took on additional appointments as a director or secretary the various companies and was able to fulfil her responsibilities, or at least some of them during that period:[46]
(c)during the period 2015 to 2022 Ms Cavallaro did not seek to have any other person appointed as the supervising agent of Alliance Accounting or Tradie Troopers;[47]
(d)in relation to contact with the ATO in about 2022 concerning overdue lodgement, Ms Cavallaro accepted her communications were in response to contact from the ATO rather than the other way around.[48]
[45] TS 207 line 39 and following; TS 210 line 15
[46] TS 207 line 3 and following this
[47] TS 210 lines 23 and 28
[48] TS 210 line 41
In respect of communications in 2022 concerning the late lodgements relating to the family businesses and the tax agent businesses Ms Cavallaro gave the following evidence:
Ms Ensor:
When you said your business did you mean the business of Alliance Accounting, Tradie Troopers and the other companies which you run from your combined office, and did you also mean by that the business that you run under your personal registered tax agent number?
Ms Cavallaro:
I don’t have any business under my personal registration number. My understanding is you need to have a personal tax agent number to then have a tax agent number under a company.
Ms Ensor:
So when you referred to March 2022 and that being a starting point of (audio malfunction). I want to ask you some questions, but I want to separate them into two camps. One camp will be questions about clients of Alliance Accounting and of Tradie Troopers. The other camp will be about yourself and Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers and other entities which you control?
Ms Cavallaro:
Okay.
Ms Ensor:
I effectively want to distinguish the clients from you and your entities?
Ms Cavallaro:
Okay.
Ms Ensor:
So thinking about March 2022 in respect of you and your entities, so putting clients wholly to one side for the minute, what steps did you take, if any at that point to rebuild your business just in respect of you and your entities?
Ms Cavallaro:
Very little, Ms Ensor, because the priority for me was to get the client data updated first and lodge. That was the priority.
Ms Ensor:
And still dealing with you and your entities in or around March 2022 onwards, what steps did you take the ATO (audio malfunction) and your entities?
Ms Cavallaro:
Moreso towards the end of 2022 when we were getting contacted by the ATO. I then approached one of those – one of the case officers I was dealing with and asked him if we could be dealing with one person. He went to his superior who I took the opportunity to look at that person’s name over the lunch break. His name was Maurice Sibelle. Maurice Sibelle contacted me and said that he would arrange to have the ones that the ATO had already started, and I gave him a list of all of the other entities in regard to all of the supermarket operations and then he took those on as well.
Ms Ensor:
And you say that was towards the end of 2022?
Ms Cavallaro:
So that was roughly from around September 2022 (audio malfunction) 2023.
Ms Cavallaro was then taken to her statement at TB 2016 which referred to an initial meeting with the ATO on 13 September 2024. The questioning continued:
Member: I’m not sure that I understand how all of this fits together from what you’ve said. I understood a few moments ago you did say that you were speaking to try and get one point of contact with the tax office which you did in 2022 2023. This letter suggests that the initial meeting that you were having with the tax office to discuss what I might describe as the personal affairs as opposed to client affairs is occurring on 13 September, which is when the tax office at least is saying it’s an initial meeting. I appreciate that the letters come from Mr Watson, the Deputy Commissioner, but ‑ ‑ ‑?
Ms Cavallaro:
The first meeting that I had about the list of entities that the ATO gave me was September 2024, however in the end of 2022 we got some correspondence from the ATO in regard to two or three of the entities in regard to the supermarket operations of our family business. I then contacted – because I was getting different areas of the ATO, I contacted one gentleman in particular, and I said to him, ‘Are we able to deal with one person to look after that particular group’, which was the group of supermarkets at the time. He then had to speak to his senior, I guess the person that he reported to, which was Maurice Sibelle. We then provided them with a list of the entities (audio malfunction) and we were working with that group on those group of entities. But that didn’t include all of the entities that I’m working with the high wealth unit on.
Member:
So is this letter that’s page 2016, is that originating from what you call the high wealth group?
Ms Cavallaro:
2016 or 2022?
Member:
Sorry, no, the page number, 2016?
Ms Cavallaro:
No. I beg your pardon. The one that’s September 2024 includes my personal group, but it also includes some of the entities that related to the ones that I dealt with in 2022 as well.
Member:
So the statement that’s made here that this was the initial meeting’s wrong?
Ms Cavallaro:
Well it’s an initial – when I got this letter – I got three different letters. One that listed entities for myself, one that listed entities for my father and one that listed entities for my sister. So there were three different letters, and it listed all of the entities in three separate letters and the initial meeting on all of those companies was 13 September 2022.
Member:
The things that happened in 22‑23, they were in connection with the supermarket businesses, were they?
Ms Cavallaro:
Correct, and they were – they are some of the entities that they are looking at now as well.
Member:
Were there any other discussions in 2022‑2023 about entities other than the supermarket entities?
Ms Cavallaro:
No.
Member:
So it would be correct that in terms of say, your own personal tax returns and those of Tradie Troopers and Alliance Accounting that they were not attended to in the period 2022 to 2024?
Ms Cavallaro:
Correct.
Member:
This is the time when those companies came onto the agenda?
Ms Cavallaro:
Correct.
Tax agent services for other clients
Ms Cavallaro gave evidence concerning how her and the Companies dealt with client information, communicated with clients and manage the lodgement of documents with the ATO.
The effect of this evidence was that prior to the last 2 years, there was no formal system in place for her or the Companies to advise clients about relevant dates for lodging documents and other information with the ATO. While correspondence received from the ATO would be forwarded to clients when received, at least until recently there was no process in place to remind clients about lodgement dates for the returns.
Evidence was also provided concerning “re-keying” data and recreating records of clients which had been lost following the ransomware attack.
LAW
These applications concern whether Ms Cavallaro, in her own capacity as a tax agent and as a director of the Companies, is a fit and proper person and whether she has breached her obligations under ss 30-10(1) and (2) of the Code. If so, what, if any, sanction should be imposed on Ms Cavallaro and the Companies.
The Decisions followed an investigation by the Board under Part 6 Subdivision 60-E of the TAS Act. Where such investigation occurs, s 60-125(2) provides:
(2) If the Board investigates conduct under section 60-95 and finds that the conduct breaches this Act, the Board must either:
(a) make a decision that no further action will be taken; or (b) do one or more of the following:
(i) impose one or more sanctions under Subdivision 30-B;
(ii) terminate an entity’s registration under Subdivision 40-A;
(iii) apply to the *Federal Court for an order for payment of a pecuniary penalty under Subdivision 50-C;
(iv) apply to the Federal Court for an injunction under section 70-5;
(v) decide that the entity (the contravening entity) that engaged in the conduct, and the information in respect of the contravening entity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph, be entered on the register for the period prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph.
Registration as a tax agent may be terminated under Subdivision 40-A where the individual or company ceases to meet one of the tax practitioner registration requirements.[49] Eligibility for registration as a registered tax agent is found in s 20-5 of the TAS Act. In the case of an individual seeking registration, they must be a “fit and proper person”.[50] In the case of a company, each director of the company must be a fit and proper person.[51]
[49] TAS Act ss 40-5(1)(b) and 40-15(1)(b)
[50] TAS Act s 20-5(1)(a)
[51] TAS Act s 20-5(3)(a)
Once registered, a tax agent is required to comply with the Code, including to act honestly and with integrity.[52]
[52] TAS Act s 30-5
A substantial difference between the parties relates to whether Ms Cavallaro is now a fit and proper person. The second substantial difference is whether Ms Cavallaro contravened her obligation under s 30-10(1) of the Code to act with honesty and integrity. In particular, whether her conduct constituted a failure to act honestly.
It is convenient to set out the legal principles relevant to a consideration of these matters.
Fit and proper person
The criteria for determining whether an individual is a fit and proper person is set out in s 20-15 of the TAS Act which provides:
20-15 Criteria for determining whether an individual is a fit and proper person
In deciding whether it is satisfied that an individual is a fit and proper person, the Board must have regard to:
(a) whether the individual is of good fame, integrity and character; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a):
(i) whether an event described in section 20-45 has occurred during the previous 5 years; and
(ii) whether the individual had the status of an undischarged bankrupt at any time during the previous 5 years; and
(iii) whether the individual served a term of imprisonment, in whole or in part, at any time during the previous 5 years.
Section 20-15 was considered by Logan J in Ham v Tax Practitioners Board[53] (Ham). There, His Honour observed:[54]
… whatever might otherwise have relevantly been considered in relation to satisfaction that an applicant was a “fit and proper person” for registration (or renewal of registration) as a tax agent, the express specification of “good fame, integrity and character” as a relevant consideration represents a parliamentary value judgment. That value judgment is that the object specified in s 2-5 of ensuring that “tax agent services are provided to the public in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct” is advanced by the Board (or Tribunal) having regard to that criterion (amongst others) in deciding whether it is satisfied a particular individual is a “fit and proper person”. Parliament has chosen not to qualify the criterion, “good fame, integrity and character” by the addition to it of the words, “as a tax agent”.
[53] [2018] FCA 1652; 108 ATR 869
[54] Ham at [37]
Of the expression “good fame, integrity and character”, Logan J said: [55]:
The expression “good fame, integrity and character” is one of wide import. The meaning of each constituent part is obvious enough as a matter of ordinary English and that, in turn, leads to a conclusion that those constituent parts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Emphatically, the expression is not confined in its application only to those who have been convicted of criminal offences. Further, it is possible to conceive of adverse circumstances, be they criminal conviction grounded or otherwise, which, viewed in an overall context, perhaps in respect of a period of many years duration and years after those adverse circumstances, do not inexorably dictate a conclusion that a person is not of good fame, integrity and character.
[55] Ham at [38]
Logan J also said that the obligation of the Board (or the Tribunal on review) to have regard to:
(a)the good faith, integrity and character of the person involved; and
(b)the other factors listed in s 20-15 of the TAS Act
was not exhaustive of the meaning of the term “fit and proper person”.[56]
[56] Ham at [43]
In this regard, His Honour endorsed a reference by the Tribunal (in the decision under appeal) to the observations of Toohey and Gaudron JJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[57] (Bond) about the expression “fit and proper person”. In Bond, their Honours said:[58]
The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.
[57] [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
[58] Bond at 380
The time to assess fitness and propriety of the person is at the time any determination is made, whether for registration, renewal or in undertaking an investigation.[59]
[59] Ham at [45]
Of the characteristics that might be relevant in determining whether a person was fit and proper in the context of the TAS Act, His Honour continued:[60]
That present statutory context therefore means that an observation with respect to the earlier regime made by Hill J in Stasos v Tax Agents’ Board of New South Wales [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974 (Stasos) remains apt. His Honour accepted, as had Davies J before him in Re: Su v. Tax Agents Board of South Australia [1982] AATA 127; (1982) 13 ATR 192 (Su), that a tax agent needed to be a person of such competence and integrity that persons may entrust their taxation affairs to him or her. He added that a tax agent would almost invariably have dealings with officers of the Australian Taxation Office and perhaps also the Tribunal, observing (Stasos, at 984):
Those dealings must be able to be carried on in an atmosphere of mutual trust. The Commissioner and his officers must be able to accept that, to the best of the ability of the tax agent, returns have been prepared which are true and accurate. This is particularly so now that the Commissioner has proceeded to a system of self assessment, with inaccuracies only coming to light in case of random audit or, presumably, other information coming to the hands of the Commissioner.
[60] Ham at [47]
In this regard, conduct otherwise than as a tax agent may be relevant in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person.[61]
[61] Ham at [48].
Further, contraventions of the Code may also be relevant in determining whether a person is fit and proper.[62]
[62] Se eg Grosfeld and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 100
Finally, a person who “lacks a proper appreciation of their responsibilities or does not discharge them is not, may be adjudged not to be, a fit and proper person”.[63]
[63] Bond per Mason CJ at [66], Brennan and Deane JJ agreeing

As observed by Hill J in Stasos v Tax Agents’ Board:[64]
The words "fit and proper person" are, as the High Court pointed out in Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales (No 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156, words traditionally used in relation to persons holding offices or vocations:
But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. `Fit' (or `idoneus') with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability: `honesty to execute it truly without malice, affection or partiality; knowledge to know what he ought duly to do; and ability as well in estate as in body, that he may intend and execute his office, when need is, diligently, and not for impotency or poverty neglect it' - Coke."
[64] [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ALD 437 at [52]
Act honestly and with integrity
Self-evidently, the failure to act honestly and with integrity may mean a person is not fit and proper.
In Su v. Tax Agents Board of South Australia[65] (Su), Davies J said:
The function of a tax agent is to prepare and lodge income tax returns for other persons. A person is a fit and proper person to handle the affairs of a client if he is a person of good reputation, has a proper knowledge of taxation laws, is able to prepare income tax returns competently and is able to deal competently with any queries which may be raised by officers of the Taxation Department. He should be a person of such competence and integrity that others may entrust their taxation affairs to his care. he should be a person of such reputation and ability that officers of the Taxation Department may proceed upon the footing that the taxation returns lodged by the agent have been prepared by him honestly and competently.
[65] [1982] AATA 127; (1982) 13 ATR 192
The expressions “honestly” and “with integrity” are not defined in the TAS Act. While there is some overlap, they are not synonymous. So much appears clear having regard to the use of the word “integrity” when use in the expression “of good fame, integrity and character” found in s 20-15 of the TAS Act and its use in the expression “honestly and with integrity” found in s 30-10(1).
In Kishore and Tax Practitioners Board (Kishore),[66] Deputy President Frost said:
Integrity is defined in the Macquarie Online Dictionary as, relevantly, ‘soundness of moral principle and character; uprightness; honesty’.
[66] [2017] AATA 271
A person may lack soundness of moral principle or character and therefore fail to act with integrity even if they have not acted dishonestly.
As to dishonesty, in the present case the applicant submitted:[67]
No findings were made by the [Board] that Ms Cavallaro made false statements knowingly or recklessly. However, the [Board] now appears to allege recklessness in the making of full statements; see para 112 of the [Board’s] statement of facts, issues and contentions. An allegation of dishonesty against a professional person should be determined by reference to well-established principles stated by Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 at 374, i.e., that a statement will only be dishonest if it is made “(1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it is true or false” (as to the application of these principles to professional disciplinary cases, see Fidock v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 108, esp., at [93]-[100]).
[67] applicant's written submissions dated 21 May 2025 para 4.11
I note that in the referenced case of Fidock v Legal Profession Complaints Committee[68] (Fidock), the Court of Appeal examined the statement of Ipp J in Kyle v Legal Practitioners Committee[69] (Kyle). There, Ipp J said at [6]:
… A practitioner who knowingly misleads a court will do so dishonestly. Therein lies the unprofessional conduct. There can be no professional misconduct where a practitioner innocently misleads a court; that is, without knowledge that the court is being misled. I accept, therefore, the submissions made by senior counsel that an intention to deceive, or dishonesty, is a necessary element of misleading the court.
[68] [2013] WASCA 108
[69] [1999] WASCA 115; (1999) 21 WAR 56
Of that statement, the Court in Fidock said:[70]
100 With respect to Ipp J, professional misconduct is not necessarily confined to the situation where a practitioner knowingly misleads the court. Candour and honesty are essential ingredients of the practitioner's obligation to the court. Thus, for example, a practitioner who makes a false assertion in closing submissions to the court about the facts, in the absence of any genuine belief that the evidence supports such an assertion, would ordinarily be acting dishonestly toward the court even if the practitioner did not know that the statement was misleading. Also, as noted above, if a solicitor swears an affidavit recklessly, careless whether it be true or false in the sense discussed in the authorities on fraudulent misrepresentation, the practitioner's conduct will generally properly be characterised as professional misconduct.
[70] at [100]
As noted above, the Board did not assert Ms Cavallaro had an intention to mislead or that Ms Cavallaro knowingly made false declarations. The Board said the conduct of Ms Cavallaro was reckless and careless. In its written submissions dated 28 May 2025 the Board said:[71]
10 When each of the false statements were made, the First Applicant was (or ought to have been) aware of the existence of the relevant overdue tax obligations. In those circumstances, making false declarations about an absence of overdue tax obligations, or allowing her agent to do so, can fairly be characterised as:
a. reflecting such carelessness on the part of the First Applicant (in her own conduct, and by her failure to adequately supervise the conduct of her agents) so as to demonstrate a lack of any genuine attempt to comply with the duties imposed on her by law to avoid making false statements in official documents. This carelessness is evident from the number of false statements, and the lack of evidence of any process for ensuring the accuracy of statements made by the First Applicant and her agents over an extended period of time;
b. reflecting a lack of ability on the part of the First Applicant to make (and to ensure that her agents make) truthful and accurate statements in official documents on numerous occasions over an extended period of time, such that officers of the ATO and the Respondent could not trust that documents lodged by the First Applicant (or completed by an agent on her behalf) are accurate or truthful;
c. reflecting, on the part of the First Applicant, an inadequate understanding of her obligations as a registered tax practitioner, and/or a reluctance to ascertain and comply with her obligations as a registered tax practitioner, when lodging official documents and when supervising agents who are completing official documents on her behalf, on numerous occasions over an extended period of time; and
d. reflecting a failure on the part of the First Applicant to make (and to ensure that her agents make) full disclosure of matters that are relevant to the assessment of her eligibility for registration as a tax practitioner on official documents, on numerous occasions over an extended period of time.
11. If the Tribunal accepts that the conduct of the First Applicant identified at RSFIC [14] to [25] can fairly be characterised in one or more of the ways set out above at [10(a)- (d)], then the Tribunal should find that s 30-10(1) has been breached. As identified in the authorities referenced at [7] above, mere carelessness, inadequate attention to professional obligations, failure to make full disclosure of relevant matters and the making of false representations are sufficient bases for finding a breach of the s 30- 10(1) requirement to act honesty and with integrity. The personal circumstances experienced by the First Applicant do not explain the 12 failures over a 5 year period to accurately declare the existence of overdue tax obligations to the Respondent.
12. If the Tribunal considers that the false statements must have been made knowingly or recklessly to find that s 30-10(1) has been breached, the Tribunal will be satisfied on the evidence before it that the First Applicant did make those false statements, or authorise their making, [DELETED] or recklessly. It would be difficult to accept that the First Applicant was not, at least, reckless in the making of the declarations, and, if the First Applicant truly did not know the statements to be false this speaks to a lack of competence to be a registered tax agent. Making a false representation has been held to be inconsistent with the integrity required for registration as a registered tax practitioner. The Applicants’ conduct here is so inconsistent.
13. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the First Applicant made, or authorised the making of, the false statements with an intent to mislead or deceive. A person’s conduct can fall short of the obligation prescribed by s 30-10(1) even without an intent to mislead or deceive. An intent to mislead can, in any event, here be inferred from the number of false statements, the lengthy period over which the statements were made, the absence of any evidence concerning the supervision of agents and the necessary connection between the making of the false statements and the maintenance of the Applicants’ respective tax agent registrations. For these reasons, it may also be inferred that the false statements were made deliberately, or at least recklessly.
[71] At paragraphs 10-13
In making these submissions, the Board relied on the decisions in Re Denton and Tax Agents’ Board of South Australia[72] and Burnett; Kerin; Kolya v Tax Practitioners Board.[73]
[72] (1983) 83 ATC 4009; (1983) 13 ATR 921 at 926
[73] (2011) 85 ATR 635 at [33]
The Board also relied on the decision of Palmer J in Hall v Poolman[74] (Hall) as to the test to be applied in determining whether a person has acted honestly. At [325], His Honour said:
In my view, when considering whether a person has acted honestly for the purposes of a defence under CA s.1317S(2)(b)(i) or s.1318, the Court should be concerned only with the question whether the person has acted honestly in the ordinary meaning of that term, i.e., whether the person has acted without deceit or conscious impropriety, without intent to gain improper benefit or advantage for himself, herself or for another, and without carelessness or imprudence to such a degree as to demonstrate that no genuine attempt at all has been to carry out the duties and obligations of his or her office imposed by the Corporations Act or the general law. A failure to consider the interests of the company as a whole, or more particularly the interests of creditors, may be of such a high degree as to demonstrate failure to act honestly in this sense. However, if failure to consider the interests of the company as a whole, including the interests of its creditors, does not rise to such a high degree but is the result of error of judgment, no finding of failure to act honestly should be made, but the failure must be taken into account as one of the circumstances of the case to which the Court must have regard under CA s.1317S(2)(b)(ii) and s.1318.
[74] [2007] NSWSC 1330; 215 FLR 343
The Board said the absence of a genuine attempt is reflected in the conduct of Ms Cavallaro and her failure to do more than provide a certificate of insurance.[75] Such conduct relevantly amounts to dishonesty.
[75] TS 327 – respondent's oral submissions
Reference was also made in the Board’s written submissions to the Code of Professional Conduct TPB 01/2010.[76] Paragraph 30 of that document states:
[76] see footnote to respondent's written submissions para 12
30. The terms 'honesty' and 'integrity' are not defined in the TASA. Guidance can therefore be obtained from decisions of the courts. The following considerations have been used by the courts in determining when a person is acting with honesty and integrity:
·has the person acted with good morals and without depravity?[8]
·has the person acted properly and without deceit?[9]
·has the person acted without intent to gain an improper benefit or advantage for himself, herself or for another?[10]
·has the person acted with such carelessness as to demonstrate that no genuine attempt has been made to carry out the duties and obligations imposed on him or her by law?[11]
·is the person of such integrity that others may entrust their taxation affairs to that person’s care?[12]
·is the person of such reputation and ability that officers of the ATO may assume that taxation returns lodged by the registered tax agent have been prepared by the agent honestly?[13]
·has the person, through their behaviour, displayed an inadequate sense of their obligations as a registered tax practitioner and/or an evident reluctance to ascertain and comply with those obligations?[14]
·has the person failed to make full disclosure of a matter in circumstances where that matter is relevant in assessing the suitability of that person to be registered, such as in the case of registered tax practitioners or legal practitioners?[15]
·does the person have a sufficient understanding of what is right and what is wrong so that they can be relied on to carry out their role or function as a registered tax practitioner?[16]
·making a false representation has also been held to be inconsistent with the integrity required for registration as a registered tax practitioner[17]
·accessing a taxpayer's personal taxation information on the Tax Agent Portal without authority has been held to breach the requirement of the Code to act honestly and with integrity[18]
·engaging in rude, inappropriate and uncooperative behaviour toward ATO officers has been held to breach the requirement of the Code to act honestly and with integrity[19]
·failing to notify regulatory authorities, such as the ATO and the TPB, of fraudulent activity that a registered tax practitioner was aware of and that posed a risk to taxpayers and the integrity of the taxation system has been held to be inconsistent with the integrity required for registration as a registered tax practitioner.[20]
As is evident from each of the dot points, these examples are an amalgam of what might fit within the expression “act honestly and with integrity”.
In my opinion, the effect of the authorities to which I have referred above is that, in some circumstances, a person may fail to act with honesty where they communicate or permit communication to be made on their behalf, without any genuine attempt to ensure the statements contained in that communication are not false or misleading. This would be so where there is a positive duty to ensure that the information contained in the communication is accurate or truthful and/or that there is a reasonable basis for the making of the statement.
Further, making a statement or permitting a statement to be made in these circumstances may also demonstrate a lack of integrity.
Compliance with the taxation laws in the conduct of the tax agent’s personal affairs
Compliance by a tax agent with their personal affairs covers a range of matters including lodging required documents with the ATO in a timely manner and paying amounts when due to the ATO in respect of relevant tax liabilities.
Of non-compliance with these obligations, Senior Member Redfern (as she then was) said in Grosfeld and Tax Practitioners Board (Grosfeld):[77]
According to Davies J in Su v Tax Agents’ Board of South Australia [1982] AATA 127, “incompetence in relation to one’s own affairs more often than not has an effect sooner or later in relation to the affairs of a client” and non-compliance by an agent with their personal tax obligations may be considered relevant in determining whether an agent is fit and proper (Re Carbery and Associates and Tax Agents’ Board of Queensland [2001] AATA 107). Complaints and proceedings unrelated to registration as a tax agent may also be relevant, particularly where a finding of misconduct demonstrates the presence of qualities that are inconsistent with fitness and propriety to practice as a tax agent (Kerin and Tax Agents’ Board of South Australia [2009] AATA 974).
[77] [2014] AATA 100 at [38]
Sanctions
As noted above, s 60-125 of the TAS Act sets out the action which the Board (or the Tribunal on review) may take following completion of an investigation. That includes termination of an entity’s registration under Subdivision 40-A or the imposition of one or more sanctions under Subdivision 30-B.
As to the question of which sanction is appropriate, Deputy President Frost said in Kishore (citations omitted):[78]
[78] Kishore at [18]- [19]
18. The imposition of a sanction is not for the purpose of punishing the individual, but for the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards within the regulated industry. A sanction may also serve the purpose of personal deterrence (to encourage the individual to comply with standards in the future) or general deterrence (to encourage others to comply).
19. In deciding on the appropriate sanction, a decision-maker should take into account the following:
·the seriousness of the conduct warranting the sanction;
·the likelihood that the conduct will be repeated and the potential harm to the public if it is;
·the impact of a particular sanction on the individual (and especially where the sanction may inhibit or prevent the individual’s capacity to earn a living);
·the interest of the public in seeing appropriate sanctions applied;
·the extent to which the individual has acknowledged the breaches and the seriousness of them; and
·the extent to which the individual has demonstrated genuine contrition or remorse.
A similar approach was adopted by Deputy President McPherson and the Senior Member McCabe in the decision of Sovereign Capital Limited and Australian Securities and Investment Commission (Sovereign Capital).[79] That case involved a review concerning cancellation of the applicant’s Australian Financial Services Licence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Tribunal said:[80]
A licence should only be suspended or cancelled if it is necessary to do so in order to accomplish the objects of the legislative scheme. A suspension will ordinarily be preferable if there is a reasonable prospect that the licence-holder can remedy the defects which prompted the concern. If there is no reasonable prospect of the issues being resolved, cancellation may be the appropriate course. The power to suspend or cancel should not be used merely to punish the licence-holder for transgressions: see Story v National Companies and Securities Commission (1988) 13 NSWLR 661.
[79] [2008] AATA 901
[80] Sovereign Capital at [84]
In the present case, s 2-5 of the TAS Act sets out the objects of the legislative scheme as follows:
2-5 Object
(1) The object of this Act is to support public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession and of the tax system by ensuring that *tax agent services are provided to the community in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.
(2) This is to be achieved by (among other things) providing for:
(a) the registration and regulation, by a national Board, of entities that provide *tax agent services; and
(b) a *Code of Professional Conduct for *registered tax agents and BAS agents; and
(c) sanctions to discipline entities in relation to their conduct as a *registered tax agent or BAS agent; and
(d) sanctions where tax agent services are provided otherwise than in accordance with this Act.
More recently, in Cross and Tax Practitioners Board (Cross)[81], Deputy President Boyle said:
[81] [2021] AATA 441 at [83]-[84]
83. In considering what sanction was appropriate, Senior Member Redfern in Li at [73]-[74] observed:
73. In Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42; (2004-5) 220 CLR 129 at 155, McHugh J commented on the nature of disqualification proceedings and noted that the jurisdiction under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) could not be properly characterised as “purely protective”. While the central issue in the case was whether the privilege against exposure to penalties and forfeitures was available to the defendant in civil penalty proceedings, McHugh J cited with approval the principles set out in the decision of Santow J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler and ors (2002) 42 ACSR 80; [2002] NSWSC 483 at [55]–[56]. In that case, Santow J helpfully set out the guiding principles to be taken into account when the disqualification of a director is being considered. These principles have subsequently been adopted in a number of disqualification cases unrelated to directors’ duties.
74. In Adler Santow J identified the factors relevant to disqualification. I am of the view that these matters are similarly relevant to my consideration of whether termination is appropriate in the circumstances of this case and, if so, whether disqualification of Mr Li from re-applying for registration for a period of three years is also appropriate. The factors referred to by Santow J, that would also be relevant to this case, can be summarised as follows:
(i) banning orders are designed to protect the public from the harm;
(ii) the banning order is protective against present and future breach;
(iii) a banning order has a motive of personal deterrence, though it is not punitive;
(iv) the objects of general deterrence are also sought to be achieved;
(v) in assessing the fitness of a person to be permitted to provide tax agent services, they have an understanding of their role and obligations;
(vi) in assessing an appropriate length of prohibition, consideration has been given to the degree of seriousness of the contraventions, the propensity that the defendant may engage in similar conduct in the future and the likely harm that may be caused to the public;
(vii) longer periods of disqualification are reserved for cases where contraventions have been of a serious nature such as those involving dishonesty;
(viii) it is necessary to balance the personal hardship to the defendant against the public interest and the need for protection of the public from any repeat of the conduct;
(ix) a mitigating factor in considering a period of disqualification is the likelihood of the defendant reforming;
(x) it is necessary to assess matters such as the character of the person, the nature of the breaches, risks to others from the continued registration of the person; and
(xi) factors which lead to the imposition of the longest periods of disqualification include large financial losses, high propensity for the person to engage in similar conduct and lack of contrition or remorse.
84. The Tribunal agrees, for the same reasons set out by Senior Member Redfern, that the principles enunciated by the courts in the above cases apply in considering termination or suspension of a tax agent’s registration under TASA.

I agree with these statements and the approach to be taken when considering what if any sanction should be imposed in a particular case. They reflect the objects of the TAS Act set out above.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In their SFICs, the applicants say:[82]
[82] TB 2351 at paragraphs 3-4
3. The First Applicant acknowledges the wrongdoing that has led to the Respondent’s decisions and accepts responsibility for the misconduct. However, the First Applicant appeals the decisions made by the Respondent on the basis that it is not the correct and preferable decision3 having regard to the relevant circumstances as they presently exit.
4. The bases on which the Applicants have applied for a review of the Respondent’s decisions are as follows:
a. The Respondent has based its decision on whether the First Applicant is a fit and proper person within the meaning of subs 20-5(1)(a) the TASA on historic misconduct and has failed to consider whether the First Applicant is presently a fit and proper person within the meaning of subs 20-5(1)(a) the TASA;
b. The misconduct of the First Applicant occurred while she was experiencing, and was attributable to, extremely traumatic personal circumstances which the Respondent failed to take into account, such that the misconduct was not attributable to any fundamental character defects which are indicative of unfitness on the part of the First Applicant;
c. There is no basis for a finding that the First Applicant has breached subs 30- 10(1) of the TASA, ie, the duty to act honestly and with integrity, as the false or misleading statements made by the First Applicant were not made deliberately or with reckless indifference to their falsity;
d. The Respondent failed to take into account that the First Applicant has managed her mental health and well-being so as to ensure that she now has the ability to discharge the responsibilities of a registered tax agent and to prevent a repetition of her misconduct;
e. The Respondent erred in finding that the First Applicant did not satisfy the registration requirement stated in subs 20-5(1)(a) as the evidence establishes that the First Applicant is presently a fit and proper person within the meaning of subs 20-5(1)(a) the TASA in that the First Applicant has the requisite attributes of honesty, knowledge and ability to discharge the responsibilities of a registered tax agent;
f. The Respondent failed to take into account that the First Applicant has demonstrated genuine remorse and insight into her misconduct, accepted responsibility for it and has been working assiduously with representatives of the ATO to rectify the deficiencies in the lodgement and payment obligations caused by her misconduct;
g. Accordingly, the sanction of termination imposed by the Respondent is punitive rather than for the protective purposes stated in s 2-5 of the TASA and, by being imposed in circumstances where it is not warranted, has the effect of diluting the denunciatory and deterrent effect which the sanction of termination is intended to serve.
As to what should occur, in their document entitled “Applicants’ Further Submissions on Sanctions and Orders” dated 16 June 2025 (applicants’ 16 June submissions) the applicants said:
2.3 The applicants contend that the appropriate sanction is an order preventing the applicants for a period of 2 years from:
(a) providing any services to any new clients (including any related entities of existing clients) unless there was a formal retainer in place with that client on or before 23 January 2025 – this is effectively a continuation of the condition for the stay of the respondent’s decisions stipulated in order 2(a) made 25 February 2025; and
(b) being the registered tax agent for any companies of which the first applicant is a director.
In support of this sanction the applicants say:[83]
2.4 The effect of the proposed orders is that the applicants for a period of 2 years will only be able to provide the services of a registered tax agent to existing clients and not to any entity of which the first applicant is a director. That will mean that the applicants will be able to devote their services to the tax affairs of their existing clients. These clients have been informed of the findings of the respondent and that the applicants accept responsibility for the breaches found by the respondent, save that the first applicant denies any dishonest conduct. (It should be noted that it is unclear as to whether the respondent made or purported to make any findings of dishonest conduct – see paragraphs 4.10 to 4.12 of the applicants’ submissions dated 21 May 2025).
2.5 Where the existing clients are aware of the breaches found by the respondent and have made an informed decision to continue to engage the applicants to provide services, the public interest is not served by denying these clients the services provided by the applicants. There is no issue that the first applicant is competent to provide the services of a tax agent. There does not appear to be any challenge to the medical evidence and to the first applicant’s own evidence that her mental health has stabilised such that it does not affect her ability to discharge her professional responsibilities. The legislative scheme established by the TASA serves a protective purpose, not a paternalistic one.
[83] applicants’ 16 June submissions paragraphs 2.4-2.5
Alternatively, the applicants say:[84]
3.1 If the Tribunal were to determine that suspension of registration (pursuant to section 30-25) or termination of registration (pursuant to section 30-30) is appropriate, the effect of any such order should be deferred for a period of 60 days. In fairness to the applicants’ exiting clients, they should be afforded sufficient time to locate the services of an alternative registered tax agent and there should be time for an orderly hand-over of their information from the applicants to the new tax agents. The respondent contemplated such an arrangement in respect of its decisions which, as stated in the letters of 20 December 2024, were deferred to take effect on 24 January 2025 in circumstances where they were made on 5 December 2024.
[84] applicants’ 16 June submissions paragraph 3.1
In its SFICs, the Board says of Ms Cavallaro:[85]
[85] At [114]
Ms Cavallaro ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA that she is a fit and proper person, on the basis that she:
a. engaged in conduct which breached subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code;
b. engaged in conduct that caused Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers to breach subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code;
c. has demonstrated that she is not of good fame, integrity and character by:
i. demonstrating a significant pattern of non-compliance with her personal taxation obligations, and those of her associated entities, over several years; and
ii. making false and misleading statements, and failing to prevent a person under her control from making false and misleading statements, when lodging annual declarations and applications for registration renewal for herself, Alliance Accounting and Tradie Troopers;
d. undermining the integrity of the taxation system and the professional standards expected of tax practitioners, the seriousness of her conduct being such that the Respondent, the Commissioner, clients and the public could not have confidence that she would perform her functions as a registered tax practitioner with integrity.
In the case of the Companies, the Board says that each of the Companies engaged in conduct that breach subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code and that each company “ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA that each of its directors is a fit and proper person on the basis that [the director of each company], Ms Cavallaro, is not a fit and proper person on the basis of the factors outlined” in the Board’s SFICs.[86]
[86] respondent's SFICs at [118] and [122]
Consequently, the Board says that its decision under review should be affirmed.
Medical evidence and capacity of Ms Cavallaro
Before dealing with the particular alleged contraventions of the Code and whether Ms Cavallaro is a fit and proper person, I should make some observations concerning the effect on Ms Cavallaro of the various traumatic circumstances set out above, the medical treatment she received and the observations of those treating her.
First was the report of Ms Boh, clinical psychologist, prepared in February 2019. Having regard to its date, it is unclear the purpose for which this report was prepared, other than it being addressed to a lawyer.
Ms Boh observes that Ms Cavallaro’s mental health has fluctuated over time, particularly in the period 2017 to 2018. In addition to her diagnosis, Ms Boh’s report records that Ms Cavallaro had “reported feeling overwhelmed with multiple work matters that she had a time to attend to”[87]. Ms Boh also observes that, in view of Ms Cavallaro’s personality “she has significant tendencies to take on more demands on tasks than she can manage” however was not then mentally ill [88].
[87] TB 2484
[88] TB 2485
Significantly, as to the state of affairs in February 2019, Ms Boh says:[89]
Deterioration of Ms Cavallaro’s mental health condition can affect her efficiency in attending to business or financial matters such as delay in attending to them although I do not think her mental health condition significantly impacts on her ability to make sound financial decisions and judgements. Ms Cavallaro has not mentioned in her sessions any information relating to her struggles managing or attending to tax affairs. As mentioned, Ms Cavallaro tends to take on more demands than she can manage (unrelated to her mental health condition). When Ms Cavallaro experiences deterioration in her mental health (and having to attend to multiple personal and work demands) can further impact on her ability to attend to business matters promptly.
[89] TB 2486
Next was a report by Morag Paterson, counselling psychologist, dated 24 May 2024[90]. Ms Paterson opined that Ms Cavallaro “presented with a complexity of symptoms and these will have impacted [her] ability to concentrate and function at work and it is likely that they have had a significant impact on her ability to operate as a tax agent”[91] .
[90] TB 2487 following
[91] TB 2488
The third report was from Dr Nguyen and was dated 16 May 2025[92]. This report set out details of various referrals for Ms Cavallaro. In relation to her then mental health the report concluded “I am unable to answer this question as it is beyond my scope as a general practitioner”.
[92] TB 2516-7
It is clear from this evidence that, Ms Cavallaro was affected by the adverse circumstances set out above and her capacity to function as a tax agent was impacted. However, this evidence does not establish incapacity to a level which would explain failures in connection with the provision of declarations to the Board or in the management of her personal tax affairs and those of the tax agent businesses throughout the whole period in question.
Ms Boh’s report, particularly the paragraph set out above, does not suggest a lack of capacity to such an extent that Ms Cavallaro was unable to effectively participate in the family businesses and the tax agent businesses and to make decisions associated therewith.
The evidence of Ms Paterson is imprecise, the use of the words “likely that they have had a significant impact” providing little insight into the degree to which Ms Cavallaro’s capacity to function may have been impacted and how.
On the other hand, Ms Cavallaro was cross-examined and gave evidence concerning setting up new family businesses, accepting appointments and continuing to act as a director and/or secretary of various entities and dealing with aspects of the tax agent businesses as they arose – for example in consequence of the ransomware attack. This suggests a capacity to assess and make decisions about the business in which she was involved, including whether others should be engaged or appointed in connection therewith.
It follows I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes an incapacity of Ms Cavallaro to understand her obligations as a tax agent and the professional responsibilities attached thereto or explains the failure to meet those obligations.
Contravention of s30-10(1) – Act honestly and with integrity
There is no dispute that the declarations made in the various renewal applicationss were false and contained incorrect information[93]. However, the applicants say Ms Cavallaro did not act dishonestly.
[93] acknowledged by the applicants in closing submissions at TS 295.2
In their SFICs, contention 3 the applicants say:
However, the Applicants contend that:
a. The First Applicant has not failed to comply with the Code of Professional Conduct, and that her conduct has not been dishonest, in breach of subs 30-10(1) of the TASA; and
b. The First Applicant continues to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under subs 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA by being a fit and proper person within the meaning of the TASA.
In closing submissions, Counsel for the applicants accepted that each of the obligations to act honestly and with integrity were different. Of the obligation to act honestly, Counsel said “A breach of a requirement to act honestly is much more serious breach than an obligation to act with integrity”. In making this submission, Counsel accepted there was a breach of the obligation to act with integrity by Ms Cavallaro [94].
[94] TS 295.4
Counsel then continued:[95]
My submission is I do not think there is anything improper in a busy professional person asking their PA to enter information on a document which they then need to verify and sign, and I think that is what Ms Cavallaro is saying. She still has her assistant assist her with the entry of information on these documents, but she …
[95] TS 298.4
As explained above, the concepts of honestly and with integrity are separate but there is some overlap in the meaning of each expression in an ordinary English sense, at least insofar as the failure to act with integrity may not mean that a person has failed to act honestly. However, whether there has been a failure to act honestly needs to be considered in the circumstances in which the impugned act has occurred.
The evidence discloses the following matters:
(a)at least in the case of Ms Cavallaro’s own registration as a tax agent, the declaration was personal to her. While the declaration on behalf of a company tax agent may be capable of being completed by an authorised officer of that company, an individual’s declaration is and remains an obligation personal to them;
(b)as recorded above, a number of the false declarations were those relating to Ms Cavallaro’s own registration;
(c)Ms Cavallaro’s name was subscribed to those declarations. Although, the evidence suggests such declarations may have been completed by Ms Baissari who also subscribed Ms Cavallaro’s name to those declarations.
(d)at least one of the declarations (set out above) contains the following question and answer and statements:
I have reviewed this application and want to submitted: Yes
I have answered all the relevant questions to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and they are true and correct in every particular.
I am aware that if I make a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, then I may be guilty of an offence pursuant to section 8K of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
I understand and will comply with the Tax Agent Services Act 2009, including the Code of Professional Conduct.
(e)Ms Cavallaro gave evidence that she did not check the documents in question.
(f)the medical evidence and other evidence provided by Ms Cavallaro does not suggest she was incapable of reading and understanding these documents. Rather, Ms Cavallaro gave evidence that she instructed Ms Baissari to complete them on her behalf.
It seems to me that the obligations of the tax agent include a duty to ensure that any declaration made by them when seeking renewal is true and correct in every respect. As noted by the authorities referred to above, a tax agent has professional obligations, in part imposed by the TAS Act. These obligations include to check and ensure the accuracy of any statements made in those declarations.
In submitting, or permitting to be submitted on their behalf, a declaration that has not been checked, a tax agent breaches the duty and thereby fails to act honestly in the sense explained in the Hall and Fidock above. This is so whether or not there is any intention to deceive or there is any knowledge of the tax agent that the statement submitted is false.
In the present case, it was not suggested that the submission of the declarations to which Ms Cavallaro’s name was subscribed were not authorised. Nor was it suggested they were submitted by mistake prior to them being checked. Rather, it was accepted express authority had been granted.
Indeed, as noted in the exerts of the transcript set out above, while Ms Cavallaro gave evidence that she would, in the future, check all declarations made, she also said that as at the time of the hearing in the Tribunal, Ms Baissari still has authority to complete the declarations.
It follows from the above, that in my view Ms Cavallaro has failed to act honestly.
Further, and in any event, the conduct of Ms Cavallaro also demonstrates a failure to act with integrity in her dealings with the Board and in providing information to the Board as part of her obligations in seeking registration and acting as a tax agent.
Contravention of s 30-10(2) – Comply with taxation laws in the conduct of personal affairs
The applicants accept that they have not complied with their obligations in connection with complying with taxation laws in the conduct of their personal affairs in breach of s 30-10(2).[96]
[96] applicants' SFICs – contention 2
However, the applicants contend Ms Cavallaro “was experiencing … extremely traumatic personal circumstances”, being those outlined above, and that her “mental condition was such that she did not have the mental ability to discharge properly the professional responsibilities of a registered tax agent”. Following treatment, the applicants say “ [Ms Cavallaro’s] condition has resolved so that she is able to discharge properly her responsibilities of a registered tax agent”.[97]
[97] applicants' SFICs – contention 10-11
The Tribunal was provided with a significant number of documents concerning communication between the ATO and Ms Cavallaro and the Companies concerning late lodgements and payments of monies due in respect of the tax affairs of each of them and of the family businesses.
It is not necessary to set out all the information contained in those documents. However, a sample of these documents demonstrates the extent of non-compliance by Ms Cavallaro and the Companies with their tax obligations and the circumstances relevant to considering contraventions of s 30-10(2) of the Code, namely the obligation to comply with taxation laws in the conduct of their own affairs.
First, is a letter to Ms Cavallaro dated 31 October 2023 advising of outstanding personal income tax returns for the five years ending 30 June 2018 until 30 June 2022.[98]
[98] TB 1033
The second is a letter dated 2 February 2023 addressed to Ms Cavallaro as the director of Tradie Troopers.[99] That letter is entitled “The results of your employer obligations audit”. The letter states:
The results of your audit
As of today, the estimated amounts that we will add to your tax and super accounts are:
Pay as you go (PAYG) withholding $88,897.00
Super Guarantee Charge $29,603.14
[99] TB 1041
The assessment for PAYG withholding payment is for the review period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2022. The Super Guarantee Charge is in respect of the quarters from 1 January 2019 until 30 June 2021, the review period being from 1 October 2018 until 30 June 2021.[100]
[100] TB 1042

In respect of the second letter, it is apparent that as at February 2023 amounts owing to the ATO remained unpaid for the periods in question. Bearing in mind these amounts were in respect of deductions to be made from salaries paid to employees (as PAYG withholding tax) or in respect of superannuation due to those employees, it remains unexplained why appropriate remittals and returns could not be lodged with the ATO on time and certainly before February 2023. The evidence indicates the tax services businesses continued to operate throughout this period with the staff. It was not suggested the employees were not paid their wages throughout this period.
Any personal circumstances encountered by Ms Cavallaro do not explain this default, it not being suggested Ms Cavallaro personally prepared the payroll and remittals to the ATO. Further, the ransomware attack in February 2021 does not explain defaults prior to this time.
The evidence establishes a long history of defaults in connection with the tax affairs of Ms Cavallaro and the Companies. These defaults have not yet been rectified nor has the ATO been paid all monies due.
Whether fit and proper person
In my view, the evidence establishes that Ms Cavallaro is not presently a fit and proper person within the meaning of the TAS Act.
Consequently, each of her and the Companies (of which she is the sole director) have ceased to meet the requirements for registration under s 20-5 of the TAS Act.
In reaching these conclusions, I have regard to the following matters:
(a)The lodgement of false declarations and the finding that Ms Cavallaro has failed to act honestly and with integrity;
(b)the apparent lack of understanding concerning the appropriateness of delegating the task of completing personal declarations to her employee, Ms Baissari;
(c)the significant and continuing defaults in connection with Ms Cavallaro’s personal tax affairs and those of the Companies; and
(d)the long period of time over which defaults in connection with the personal tax affairs have continued and the fact those matters remain unresolved.
In addition, it is apparent that the tax agent businesses are not meeting their obligations concerning the provision of tax agent services to clients.
The evidence of Mr Baissari is of some importance on this issue. In effect, he was called as a character witness and gave evidence of his trust and reliance upon Ms Cavallaro and the tax agent businesses. As set out above, this evidence included evidence Ms Cavallaro had not informed him of penalties totalling more than $7000 which had been imposed by the ATO on his business. Indeed, Ms Baissari appeared surprised when being cross examined about these matters before the Tribunal.
Sanctions
The applicants say:[101]
12. The First Applicant accepts responsibility for the misconduct which has been found by the Respondent. She appreciates the significance of her wrongdoing, she regrets it and she has rehabilitated herself such that it is truly unlikely that there will be any lapse in the future of the standards which are required of her - these are significant considerations on the question of sanction …
13. As a demonstration of the First Applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for her misconduct, she has co-operated with the ATO on an ongoing basis in relation to lodgement plans. She has notified her clients of the wrongdoing in terms agreed to by the Respondent.
[101] applicants' SFICs – contentions 12-13
In short, Counsel for the applicants submits Ms Cavallaro has shown contrition, has acknowledged her failings and has been working with the ATO to rectify past defaults.
Save for her denial that she failed to act honestly, it can be accepted that Ms Cavallaro has shown contrition. She has been working with the ATO to rectify defaults in relation to personal defaults and defaults in respect of family businesses and the Companies. It can also be accepted that the tax agent businesses have been working to bring in to order the tax affairs of their clients.
Nonetheless, the breaches of the Code are serious and, in respect of personal tax affairs, continuing.
In addition, the affairs of individual clients of the tax agent businesses have still not been brought into order. This is despite the ransomware attack occurring four years ago. In the meantime, new clients have been engaged or additional work for existing clients has been accepted. Further, as disclosed by the evidence of Mr Baissari, it would seem clients have not been kept fully informed about communications from the ATO and decisions made concerning those clients’ affairs.[102]
[102] see evidence of Mr Baissari referred to above whether he had been informed of penalties imposed by the ATO.
In my opinion, this conduct warrants a decision to terminate the registration of each of the applicants.
In reaching this conclusion, I have also had regard to the following:
(a)a function of any sanction is to provide general and specific deterrence, not to punish;
(b)protection of the public is a relevant consideration;
(c)as recognised in the objects of the TAS Act, there is a need “to support public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession and of the tax system by ensuring that tax agent services are provided to the community in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct”.
The long history of non-compliance with professional obligations and the continuing non-compliance in respect of the tax agents’ personal affairs lead me to conclude that a period of exclusion from providing tax agent services is appropriate for each applicant.
Such sanctions will support public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession. It will permit a period of time where the applicants can focus upon bringing their personal affairs into order and reflect upon and undertake further education concerning acting as tax agents.
I recognise that the sanction of termination has the potential to affect the capacity of the applicants to earn income. However, in the case of Ms Cavallaro, the family businesses appear extensive and the evidence does not suggest the consequence of termination would remove any ability for her to earn an income from other sources.
As to existing clients, there is no suggestion that their affairs could not be transferred to other tax agents to complete work which is presently outstanding. Rather, in their additional submissions, the applicants have sought some time before any termination takes effect to enable suitable transitional arrangements to be made. I will allow for this to occur
Finally, no suggestion was made on behalf of the Companies that there were available alternative directors who could satisfy the requirements as fit and proper persons to continue as directors of these businesses. No evidence was provided of other tax agent who might be prepared to “step in” to the Companies to enable them to continue to operate. It is therefore appropriate to terminate the registration of each of the applicants as provided in the Subdivision 40-A of the TAS Act.
I accept the evidence from the applicants concerning the steps being taken to rectify existing defaults concerning their personal tax affairs. In these circumstances and having regard to the expressed remorse and the desire to continue as tax agents in the future, a period should be fixed in which the applicants may not again apply for registration.
It seems to me that a period of one year is an appropriate period, during which I would expect issues which I have identified can be addressed. No doubt any application for registration after this time will be accompanied by evidence setting out the then state of affairs concerning the capacity of Ms Cavallaro and the Companies to meet their obligations.
Having reached these conclusions, in my view the correct or preferable decision is to vary the decision of the Board by reducing the period in which the applicants are prevented from seeking reregistration to one year. I will also provide the decision as varied takes effect after 60 days from the date of publication of these reasons to enable arrangements to be made for existing clients to move their tax affairs to other providers or make alternative arrangements.
DECISION
In respect of each of application 2025/0375, 2025/0376 and 2025/0377 the decision of the Board made 20 December 2024 is varied to read as follows:
(a) Registration of the first applicant is terminated pursuant to s 40-5(1)(b) of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TAS Act) and registration of the second and third applicants is terminated pursuant to s 40-15(1)(b) of the TAS Act.
(b) Termination takes effect 60 days after the date of these orders.
(c) Pursuant to s 40-25 of the TAS Act, the applicants may not apply for registration for a period of 1 years from the date termination takes effect pursuant to order (b).

181. I certify that the preceding 180 (one-hundred-and-eighty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Harrowell.

...............[SGD].........................................................
Associate
Dated: 29 September 2025

Date(s) of hearing:
2,3,4 and 5 June 2025

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr D Moujalli

Solicitors for the Applicants: N Panos and Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ms C Ensor and Ms N Alroe

Date(s) of hearing:	2,3,4 and 5 June 2025
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr D Moujalli
Solicitors for the Applicants:	N Panos and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms C Ensor and Ms N Alroe