G J Brown & Co Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board

This matter concerned an appeal by G J Brown & Co Pty Ltd (the Company) and Mr G J Brown against decisions made by the Tax Practitioners Board (the Board). The dispute centred on the eligibility of Mr Brown, the sole director of the Company, and consequently the Company itself, for registration as a tax agent. The Board had determined that Mr Brown was not a fit and proper person to be registered, which in turn rendered the Company ineligible for registration.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Brown was a "fit and proper person" within the meaning of the relevant Act, and whether the Company was eligible for registration given Mr Brown's status. The Tribunal was required to consider the extensive history of non-compliance with taxation laws by both Mr Brown personally and by entities he controlled, including the Company and a Practice Trust. This non-compliance involved late lodgement of income tax returns and Business Activity Statements, as well as outstanding tax liabilities and director penalty liabilities.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the meaning of "fit and proper person" as interpreted in previous case law, including decisions of the Tribunal and the Federal Court. The Tribunal noted that the expression requires a broad judgment, taking into account the conduct of the individual in the context of the activities they are engaged in and the ends to be served by those activities. The Tribunal found that Mr Brown's conduct, including significant and prolonged non-compliance with his own taxation obligations and those of entities he controlled, demonstrated a lack of good fame, integrity, and character. This extensive non-compliance, spanning many years and involving substantial tax liabilities, led the Tribunal to conclude that Mr Brown was not a fit and proper person.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. It ordered that Mr Brown's registration as a tax agent be terminated pursuant to section 40-5(1)(b) of the Act. As a result of this finding, the Company was deemed ineligible for registration under section 20-5(3)(a) of the Act.