Ham and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Philip Robert Ham for renewal of his registration as a tax agent, which was rejected by the Tax Practitioners Board (the Board). The Board's decision was based on findings by the Supreme Court of Queensland that Mr Ham, as the directing mind of Canehire, was knowingly concerned in Canehire's breach of fiduciary duties and trust, and that he had consciously acted dishonestly in dealing with the proceeds of sale of a property. Mr Ham sought a review of the Board's decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Ham was a "fit and proper person" for registration as a tax agent under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth), and consequently, whether he was eligible for registration. The assessment of fitness and propriety was to be made at the time of the Tribunal's decision, allowing consideration of events occurring after the Board's determination.

The Tribunal considered the findings of the Supreme Court, which established Mr Ham's dishonest conduct and breach of fiduciary duties. While acknowledging that civil judgments are not generally admissible to prove the facts on which they are based, the Tribunal noted that the Board's case relied on these findings and Mr Ham's failure to disclose them earlier. Mr Ham provided evidence asserting his belief that he had acted ethically and that his understanding of his obligations had evolved. However, the Tribunal ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Mr Ham did not meet the prescribed "fitness and propriety" requirement for registration.