Fragogianis and Tax Practitioners Board - [2023] AATA 3145

Fragogianis and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 3145 (5 October 2023)
Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Numbers:2023/0406 and 2023/0409
Re:Anastasios Fragogianis
FIRST APPLICANT
Fragogianis & Co Pty Ltd
SECOND APPLICANT

Tax Practitioners BoardAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D Mitchell
Date:5 October 2023
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal refuses the Applicants requests under section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the reviewable decisions. The interim stays granted on 10 February 2023 as varied on 13 April 2023 are discharged.
…………………[SGD]……………............
Member D Mitchell

CATCHWORDS
TAX AGENT REGISTRATION – application for a stay of the decision under review – consent stay order in operation – cancellation of tax agent registration – application for stay of the decision under review refused.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth)
CASES
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2009) 181 FCR 130
Birdseye v Tax Practitioners Board [2020] FCA 1235
Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250
Cross and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1471
Hazel Scott Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 404
Scott and Australian Securities Commission (2009) 51 AAR 114
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] 235 CLR 286
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D Mitchell
5 October 2023
INTRODUCTION

This is an application for a stay which arises out of decisions made by the Tax Practitioners Board (the Respondent) to terminate the registration of both Mr Anastasios Fragogianis (the First Applicant) a registered tax agent, and Fragogianis & Co Pty Ltd (the Second Applicant) (together the Applicants), a company which conducts business as a tax agent, of whom
Mr Fragogianis is the sole director.
The First Applicant has been a registered tax agent since 1 January 2005.
The Second Applicant has been a registered tax agent since 1 February 2011.
By its decisions dated 8 December 2022, the Respondent determined that the Applicants failed to comply with certain aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) under the Tax Agent Services Act2009 (Cth) (the Act) and that as such the First Applicant ceased to be a fit and proper person as required under section 20-5(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the Respondent determined that the Second Applicant ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirements under section 20-5(3)(a) of the Act by virtue that its director was no longer a fit and proper person.
In addition to terminating the Applicants tax agent registration pursuant to sections
40-5(1)(b) and 40-15(1)(b) of the Act respectively, the Respondent also decided, pursuant to section 40-25(1) of the Act that the Applicants may not reapply for registration as a tax agent under the Act for five years from the date of termination.
The decisions were made on 8 December 2022 to take effect on 20 January 2023. On
20 January 2023, the Applicants made applications for review of and to stay those decisions to this Tribunal.
Interim stays were granted by consent of the parties on 10 February 2023 and were amended on 13 April 2023 making the interim stay orders subject to conditions that:
(a)The Applicants do not undertake any new clients.
(b)The Applicants must by close of business on 28 April 2023 inform their existing clients, by way of letter in a form approved by the Respondent, of the administrative action taken by the Respondent and the proceedings currently on foot at the Tribunal.
An interlocutory stay hearing was conducted on 18 July 2023 with both the Applicants and Respondent engaging Counsel. The Tribunal notes that the First Applicant was not present at the interlocutory hearing and as such was not available to the Respondent for cross-examination or to the Tribunal to seek clarification of points in his written Affidavits. The Tribunal and Respondent were not aware ahead of the proceedings that the Applicant was not going to be made available.
PRINCIPLES OF A STAY
Section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) provides the Tribunal a discretion to stay the operation of the reviewable decision to which the application before it relates. It relevantly provides:
(2) The Tribunal may, on request being made by a party to a proceedings before the Tribunal (in this section referred to as the relevant proceeding), if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is desirable to do so after taking into account the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review, make such order or orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision to which the relevant proceeding relates or a part of that decision as the Tribunal considers appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
The Tribunal must therefore consider after taking into account the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review whether the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application would be rendered nugatory should a stay not be granted. It is both the interest of affected persons and the effectiveness of the hearing that must weigh in the favour of granting a stay, they are not mutually exclusive.
In Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2009) 51 AAR 114, Downes J provided a summary of a range of factors that would typically be addressed in considering whether to exercise the discretion to grant a stay. Those factors have been used as points of references in subsequent cases and include:
·Prospects of success in the proceeding.
·The consequences to the Applicant if a stay is not granted.
·The public interest.
·The consequences to the Respondent, in carrying out its functions, if the stay is or is not granted.
·Whether the application for review will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted.
·Any other relevant matters.
These factors are not prescriptive and the weight if any to be given to any particular factor will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature and content of the reviewable decision.
CONSIDERATION
Prospects of Success
Where there is an obvious indication that the substantive case has good prospects, a stay is more likely to be desirable. In contrast where it is obvious that a case is devoid of merit, that will weigh against granting a stay. However, it is not for the Tribunal in stay applications to undertake an exhaustive evaluation of the merits of a case, especially in circumstances where the parties have not yet had the opportunity to file all the evidence and provide a statement of issues, facts and contentions upon which they rely. The Tribunal must however, based on the submissions made by the parties be satisfied that the Applicant’s case is arguable.
The Respondent’s decisions can be summarised as having determined that the Applicants had:
·failed to act honestly and with integrity and that their conduct raised issues with receipting and accounting of client funds;
·failed to provide to clients the money received on their behalf;
·lodged client statements to the Commissioner of Taxation without the company director’s knowledge or authority which in some instances amounted to making false statements;
·failed to comply with personal tax obligations;
·failed to take reasonable care when preparing and lodging BAS which led to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) making amendments on the basis that the Applicants clients were not eligible for the CFB payments; and
·failed to respond to requests and directions from the Respondent.
In this case, the Applicants submitted that their applications have good prospects for success. The Applicants grounds for review in this regard were succinctly summarised in their submissions filed on 14 April 2023 as follows:
a)that the Applicants did not fail to act with honesty and integrity as concluded by the Board in its decision;
(b)that the Applicants did not fail to comply with taxation laws in the conduct of their personal affairs as concluded by the Board in its decision;
(c)that the Applicants deny failing to comply with the Code of Professional Conduct set out in s 30-10 of the TASA as concluded by the Board;
(d)that whilst the Applicants accept that there are some instances where there were delays in transferring refunds or payments to clients that may be regarded as unreasonable, any shortfall in the Applicants’ duty to account is explained or mitigated by the difficult personal circumstances of [the First Applicant] at the time and/or difficulties in processing the transfer of payments and refunds during COVID-19 lockdown periods;
(e)that the Applicants deny failing to act competently as concluded by the Board;
(f)that the Applicants deny that they ‘knowingly obstructed’ the proper administration of a taxation law as concluded by the Board;
(g)that the Applicants deny failing to respond to requests in a timely, responsible and reasonable manner as concluded by the Board; and
(h)that the circumstances are not such that they warrant the making of a decision to deny the Applicants an opportunity to apply for registration under the TASA for a period of five years from the date of termination of their registration as a tax agent takes effect.
The Applicants further submitted that their conduct was not remotely close to the level of wrongdoing usually found in cases where a decision is made to refuse a request for a stay.
At the interlocutory hearing the Applicants Counsel provided submissions in relation to each of the grounds outlined in the Respondent’s decisions, raising counter arguments, disputing third party statements, making reference to the need to provide further evidence to establish their contentions and making novel legal arguments in regards to interpretation of aspects of the Code.
The Respondent set out in its written and oral submissions further reasons and analysis of the evidence as it presently stood in relation to the reviewable decisions. The Respondent contended that the Applicants have not constructed an evidentiary foundation upon which the Tribunal could be satisfied that they have a reasonably arguable case for having the decisions under review set aside and as such it is unlikely that any outcome other than termination would be appropriate.
The Applicants Counsel acknowledged that there is a clear dispute between the Applicants and some of their clients with regards to approval or authority to receive refunds and payments into the Second Applicant’s trust account and to undertake certain actions which will be a matter for the Tribunal at the final hearing as to whose evidence it prefers.
The Respondent further provided submissions and evidence in relation to notification received from the ATO with regards to a current investigation in relation to misuse of a Self-Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) auditor number (SAN), of which it contended of itself is a strong reason against the granting of a stay. As set out below, the Tribunal considers that such considerations are relevant to considering whether it is appropriate to grant a stay on the basis that the Tribunal will be required to assess at the final hearing whether the First Applicant is a fit and proper person at the date of its decision and as such the outcome of the SAN matter may impact the eventual findings of the Tribunal. This issue is considered further below.
It is not disputed that for the Tribunal on review to make a different finding the Applicants will need to provide further evidence in support of their contentions of which are presently predominately assertions. The Applicants will also need to address the issues that arise from the SAN investigation. The Applicants case at this point does not seem especially strong, however if such evidence is provided and accepted by the Tribunal then they at least may have an arguable case that the Respondent’s decision should be set aside.
On balance, based on the present evidence before the Tribunal, this factor does not weigh heavily in favour of granting the stays.
Consequences to the Applicant if a stay is refused
The Applicants contended that if the stays are refused that the damage to them, their clients, and particularly to the First Applicant and his family personally will be brought upon them immediately and will be such that it cannot be undone even if the decisions are successfully reviewed.
The affidavit of the First Applicant dated 13 April 2023, outlines that he derives his income from operating the Second Applicant and working as a tax agent and accountant. The First Applicant also outlined that his wife’s income is derived from working for the Second Applicant and that suspension of his registration would suspend both his and his wife’s income and could cause irreparable damage to his career and reputation in the industry. The First Applicant also referred to issues surrounding his and his wife and children’s health and well being should stays not be granted.
At the interlocutory hearing the Respondent referred to material before the Tribunal that suggested that the place of business of the Second Applicant was no longer in use and that it was unclear whether it was continuing to carry on business or if so to what extent.
The Applicant’s representative addressed that issue by telling the Tribunal that there were negotiations and an in-principal agreement to sell the business being carried on by the Second Applicant. The Applicant’s representative contend that the evidence of the First Applicant is not affected by that matter because if the decisions under review are not stayed then obviously the Second Applicant cannot carry on as a tax agent and it will lose the sources of income available to it by carrying on and providing services of a tax agent, which are in turn the sole source of income for the First Applicant and his family.
The Respondent acknowledged that the Applicants may experience consequences should the stay applications be refused however contended that any adverse consequences are outweighed by the other considerations including the public interest.
The Tribunal notes that it is open to the Second Applicant to put in place an alternative director to the First Applicant. While doing so would not remedy the allege breaches of the Code, it would alleviate the section 20-5(3)(a) of the Act issue. This may in fact be part of the purpose of the prospective sale of the Second Applicant’s business.
The Tribunal acknowledges that if stays are not granted the effects of such a decision will be immediate upon the Applicants, however notes that their clients and staff are aware of the administrative actions taken by the Respondent and the proceedings before the Tribunal. The First Applicant asserted that it is unlikely that he will be able to readily find employment or employment satisfactory enough to provide for himself or his family, there is however limited evidence before the Tribunal in relation to his employability or overall financial position both with regards to his present income or outside of his employment.
Based on the material before the Tribunal, there is no evidence before it to suggest that the Applicants would be unable in the future to recommence providing tax agent services, should their applications be successful.
The Tribunal agrees with the settled position that the prospect of economic loss consequent upon regulatory action is inherent in the regulatory regime.[1] This is particularly the case where the Applicants were subject to investigation and disciplinary action by the Respondent in 2019. As such, in circumstances where the matters leading to the reviewable decisions and the other matters arising since that decision (as discussed later) are of a serious nature, the Tribunal finds that little weight should be placed on this factor.
[1] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2009) 181 FCR 130.
PUBLIC INTEREST
The Respondent contended that its findings against the Applicants are serious and that granting a stay exposes clients to ongoing risk, despite the Respondents having carried out its functions of investigating the conduct and finding what appears to be serious, repeated non-compliance and having taken action. The Respondent contended that the need to uphold the integrity of the tax system and preserve general community confidence in the tax profession outweigh other factors in favour of the granting of stays. The Respondent further contended that circumstances where additional complaints have been made in relation to the Applicants and the SAN misuse investigation being conducted by the ATO were not volunteered by them to the Tribunal contribute to why the stays should be refused.
The Applicants contended that the public interest considerations are met by their preparedness to meet the conditions presently placed on the interim stays. The Applicant further contended that this matter is not one where the Respondent has made findings that funds have been misappropriated and as such with reference to previous Tribunal decisions, it is desirable that the stays be granted with conditions.
The Tribunal notes that the Second Applicant had been sanctioned by the Respondent in August 2019 in relation to a finding that it had failed to comply with section 30-10(3) of the Act in that it did not account to a client specified refunds it had received from the ATO on their behalf in a timely manner. As a result, the Second Applicant received a written caution and the First Applicant was required to complete and pass a specified course of education or training acceptable to the Respondent.
In his affidavit dated 13 April 2023, the First Applicant referred to mental health difficulties he encountered during 2016 to 2019 and conceded that as a result he did not get the help he needed immediately, and his work did suffer to a certain extent. The First Applicant stated that he however did not believe his conduct was such that required an investigation by the Respondent and their ultimate decision to terminate his registration as a tax agent and his company’s registration as a tax practitioner. The First Applicant outlined the steps he took in engaging a business and life coach during the four years since 2019 and stated that while he conceded that he did fall behind on his work and servicing his clients for a brief period, he maintained that to the best of his ability and given his circumstances, he always conducted his work with his clients’ best interest at the forefront.
The Tribunal is troubled that given the gravity of the findings of the Respondent, the number and extent of client complaints and SAN issue presently being investigated by the ATO that the First Applicant asserts that he does not believe his conduct warranted investigation by the Respondent. Further, whilst the First Applicant’s mental health concerns may have improved since 2019, there has been no indication in the evidence before the Tribunal that the other factors to which he refers regarding his personal or family situation have improved. As such the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicants approach to providing their services have changed to address the issues raised in the Respondent’s decisions.
On this basis the Tribunal finds that considerations of the public interest strongly weigh against the granting of stays in the present matters even with conditions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the present or any further conditions would necessarily address the particular danger the Respondent has considered.[2]
[2] Hazel Scott Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 404.
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE RESPONDENT IN CARRYING OUT ITS FUNCTIONS IF A STAY IS GRANTED OR REFUSED

The object of the Act and as such the duties of the Respondent are as set out in section

2-5 ‘to ensure that tax agent services are provided to the public in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct’.
There are no adverse consequences to the Respondent should stays be granted beyond its interest in fulfilling those duties.
WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY IF A STAY WERE NOT GRANTED
The Applicants Counsel submitted that it is not necessary for the Applicants to show that there will be a complete financial collapse of the company to show this factor weighs in favour of granting a stay. The Applicants sought to rely on the following passage from Birdseye v Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250, where Senior Member Olding at [110]-[111] said:
If the Applicants were to succeed in the substantive reviews in having the terminations set aside or the five-year prohibition period shortened, the reviews would not be rendered nugatory. They could recommence and rebuild the tax agent services practice.
Nevertheless, it is self-evident that there would be a substantial adverse effect upon the Applicants in dislocation of their business and consequent lost income and reputation that a successful outcome in the substantive reviews would not remedy. Many clients forced to go elsewhere may not return to the Applicants even if the decisions were to be set aside in the substantive reviews. Again, these are inevitable consequences of termination of which tax agents who repeatedly fail to comply with registration requirements place themselves in jeopardy.
The Respondent contended that little weight should be placed on this factor on the basis that:
·The Applicants have not provided any evidence capable of demonstrating that a refusal of the stays would render the applications for review nugatory.
·The fact that the Applicants may be prevented from carrying on business as registered tax agents while the proceedings are being reviewed will not, of itself, render the applications for review nugatory.
·In the unlikely event that the applications for review were ultimately successful in their entirety, then subject to any appeal, the Applicants tax agent registrations would be restored and they would be able to recommence the provision of tax agent services.
·The Applicants clients are already aware of the proceedings and the Applicants present circumstances.
The Tribunal accepts that in not granting the Applicants stay requests that they will experience economic, professional and personal losses and should they be successful in their applications they will be required to rebuild the business. This however does not of itself make the review pointless or render it nugatory should stays not be granted. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the extent of any losses or what steps have been or are being taken in relation to the Applicant’s present clients in light of their notification of their present situation.
The Tribunal finds that this factor does not weigh in favour of granting the stays.
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
The Tribunal notes that the Second Applicant as at April 2023, in addition to the First Applicant and his wife employed a senior bookkeeper and engaged a contractor. The First Applicant outlined in his affidavit dated 13 April 2023 his view of the bookkeepers ability to secure another position. While the Tribunal accepts that these two individuals’ interests will be affected should stays not be granted and the Second Applicant ceases to provide tax agent services. The Tribunal considers that there is insufficient evidence before it to raise these interests above those of the public interest or to a level that weighs heavily in favour of granting the stays.
The Tribunal further notes that the First Applicant outlined in his 13 April 2023 affidavit that he and the Second Applicant service approximately nine hundred clients and that the client base includes older individuals of the community who are of Greek descent with English being their second language. The First Applicant submitted that those clients would struggle in obtaining a new accountant who can meet their financial and personal needs to the same degree that he does, given he is fluent in the Greek language. The Tribunal accepts that it is likely that if stays are not granted that some of the Applicants clients may be more inconvenienced than others (noting there is no information in relation to the actual number of clients who rely on the First Applicant’s linguistic assistance). Noting, however that the issues to which the reviewable decisions relate and the Tribunal’s findings with regards to public interest it considers that on balance not granting stays would not be contrary to the interests of the Applicants clients.
The Respondent referred the Tribunal to previous sanctions imposed on the Second Applicant in 2019 in relation to a finding that it had failed to comply with section 30-10(3) of the Act in that it did not account to a client specified refunds it had received from the ATO on their behalf in a timely manner. As a result, the Second Applicant received a written caution and the First Applicant was required to complete and pass a specified course of education or training acceptable to the Respondent.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicants did not raise this in their written or oral submissions. When asked about this matter by the Tribunal, the Applicants Counsel told the Tribunal he concedes breaches of the Code had been identified in the past and that there is nothing he can say about those.
The Respondent filed Supplementary T-Documents on 5 May 2023, 15 June 2023 and

14 July 2023 which amongst other things provided details of five new client complaints and a notification from the ATO in relation to a SAN misuse investigation (and associated documentation).
At the interlocutory hearing the Applicants Counsel opposed those documents being taken into consideration by the Tribunal on the basis that they were not relevant to determining whether a stay should be granted and that they were provided in breach of section 37 of the AAT Act on the basis that they relate to matters occurring after the reviewable decision had been made.
The Respondent in reply contended that the documents had been provided in accordance with section 38AA of the AAT Act which provides an ongoing requirement for lodging material documents with the Tribunal. The Respondent further contended that the documents are relevant as the Tribunal will be required to determine the issue as to whether the First Applicant is a fit and proper person at the time of making its decision.[3]
[3] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] 235 CLR 286.
The Respondent contended that the SAN misuse issue is a serious matter and submitted based on the evidence presently before the Tribunal and the Applicants failure to provide a response to the ATO in relation to their investigation, this issue may of itself preclude the First Applicant from satisfying the fit and proper person test. The Respondent referred the Tribunal to a number of previous decisions in regard to the seriousness of SAN misuse and the consequence that such conduct may have on affected clients.
In relation to the five new client complaints the Respondent submitted that it did not yet have a fixed position in relation to how they should be reviewed, however that they are likely to be relevant to the final determination of the applications before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considers that it is appropriate that this new information be put before it. It is not at this time conducting a ‘mini hearing’ or making determinations with regards to the substantive issues before the Tribunal as such it is not required to make findings with regards to that material.
The Tribunal does however consider that the evidence with regards to SAN misuse and the further client complaints is relevant to considerations as to whether it is desirable in the circumstances to grant the stays. This is to the extent that the evidence shows the Applicants appeared to be refusing to engage with the SAN misuse issue with the ATO and that ongoing concerns are being raised by the Applicants clients in relation to their conduct to which the findings of the reviewable decisions relate.
The Tribunal notes that in the affidavit dated 7 July 2023, the First Applicant’s responded to the five new complaints. Even if the First Applicant’s evidence is accepted in relation to a particular complainant the Tribunal considers that there remains a large gap between what may be considered to be good record keeping by the Applicants, their assertions and those being made by the complainants (noting that goes to both the complaints raised throughout the original decision making process and new complaints).
While these other relevant matters are not determinative as to whether a stay should be granted, they do, however not weigh in favour of stays being granted.
CONCLUSION
The public interest is served in tax agents, upon whose honesty the system of lodgement of tax returns and activity statements depends, being held to, and being seen to be held to, the highest standard of professional and ethical conduct.[4]
[4] Cross and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1471 at [68].
The Tribunal notes that in this interlocutory matter it has been referred to several Tribunal decisions of which it has considered however is not bound by. Each case must turn on its own factual circumstances.
The Applicant’s representative made extensive reference to and placed importance on the decision of Logan J in Birdseye v Tax Practitioners Board [2020] FCA 1235 (Birdseye). The Applicant’s representative put forward the reasoning of Logan J and subsequent adoption thereof by the Tribunal as being a primary consideration for this Tribunal.
The Tribunal has given consideration to the decision of Logan J in Birdseye and makes its decision in line with the following principles:
23.… Nonetheless, it may be accepted that an applicant for a stay is in no way required to demonstrate that he, she, or it, as the case may be, must succeed upon a review on the merits of the decision. At most, all that one must show is that there is a basis in the material before the Tribunal for forming the opinion that it is “desirable”, in order to preserve the effectiveness of the review, to grant a stay. As to that, to use the term “onus” would be inapt, having regard to the very nature of the administrative review conducted by the Tribunal. That would be to adopt language from a different discourse, namely, that of an exercise of judicial power: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259.
24.Nonetheless, it is, obviously, in the interests of an applicant to be able to point to something in the material before the Tribunal which engenders the requisite opinion as to desirability. That might be found in what was already before the primary decision maker whose decision is under review. It might be found not in factual material before that decision maker, but rather, in the approach to the construction of the statute empowering the making of the decision concerned. Thus, it may be that there is, even aside from any factual controversy, an arguable proposition of law. It may be each of those. The foundation may also be in additional material which was not before the primary decision maker but has been introduced, or at least can be shown to be reasonably in prospect of being introduced, having regard to the particular stage of the proceedings.
25.It, truly, is neither necessary, nor desirable, to set metes and bounds as to what may engender appropriately the requisite desirability opinion other than to observe that, as with any administrative decision, there must be some material before the Tribunal which is reasonably capable of engendering the requisite opinion.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any material before it, or indication of such material existing which is reasonably capable of engendering the requisite opinion that stays should be granted. Consequently, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, it does not consider it is desirable for the purposes of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the applications for review for stays to be granted.
The Tribunal considers that the public interest of itself weighs strongly against the granting of the stays. There is no denying that the Applicants, their employees and clients will be adversely affected as a result of this decision. However, the Tribunal considers that the Applicants attitude towards the necessity of the Respondent undertaking its initial investigation, their failure to address the previous sanctions, their poor record keeping and their apparent refusal to address the SAN misuse issues to be so troubling that it would not be appropriate to allow them to continue to provide tax agent services until further information is provided.
DECISION
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal refuses the Applicants requests under section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the reviewable decisions. The interim stays granted on 10 February 2023 as varied on 13 April 2023 are discharged.

I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D Mitchell

.........................[SGD]...........................
Associate
Dated: 5 October 2023

Date of hearing: 18 July 2023

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr B Kasep

Mr C Apostolakos
Diamond Conway Lawyers

Mr K Josifoski

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms E Markesinis
Mr C Febbraro
Tax Practitioners Board