Hanieh and Tax Practitioners Board
[2024] AATA 3251
•9 September 2024
Hanieh and Tax Practitioners Board [2024] AATA 3251 (9 September 2024)
Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2024/2562
Re:Anas Hanieh
APPLICANT
AndTax Practitioners Board
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member D Benk
Date:9 September 2024
Place:Sydney
The applications for stay and confidentiality orders pursuant to ss 41 and 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) are refused.
.......................[SGD].............................................
Senior Member D Benk
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of decision and confidentiality orders – whether discretion of the Tribunal is enlivened to grant a stay – whether a stay is desirable for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing – whether a stay with conditions is appropriate – whether consequences for applicant and third parties substantiated – public interest considerations – presumption of openness and transparency of proceedings – whether grounds for confidentiality orders made out – reputational damage and financial hardship not sufficient – applications for stay and confidentiality orders refused
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth)
Cases
McLean v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 22
Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 199
Evans and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 1408
Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185
Devasahayam and Comcare [2010] AATA 784
Re Lawrance and CRS Australia (2004) 85 ALD 238
Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64
Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D Benk
9 September 2024
BACKGROUND
On 7 March 2024, the Tax Practitioners Board (‘the Respondent’) terminated Mr Anas Hanieh’s (‘the Applicant’) registration as a BAS and taxation agent. It further determined that the Applicant could not apply for registration for a period of five years. This decision was made following an investigation, in which the Respondent concluded the Applicant had engaged in a number of breaches of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the TASA Act’) and the Code of Professional Conduct in the TASA. It was determined that breaches occurred on three main grounds;
(i)The Applicant failed to act honestly and with integrity,[1] by:
[1] Subsection 30-10(1) of the Code.
-lodging false BAS statements, which resulted in him receiving significant refunds, to which he was not entitled, and where he knew or ought to have known they were false;
-providing false or misleading statements in his email to the Respondent, dated 26 August 2023; and,
-making a false statement regarding his experience and supervision in his application for agent registration.
(ii)The Applicant failed to satisfy personal taxation obligations, by engaging in the above conduct.[2]
(iii)The Applicant failed the element of fitness and propriety,[3] by:
-receiving a total amount of $231,766 from false BAS lodgements under his ABN, which resulted in significant losses to the ATO;
-demonstrating a pattern of failure to comply with tax laws over a period of three years;
-engaging in conduct which undermines the integrity of the taxation system; and,
-demonstrating a serious and blatant disregard for tax laws, together with a lack of accountability.
[2] Subsection 30-10(2) of the Code.
[3] Subsection 30-10(1) of the Code.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY WITHIN THE TRIBUNAL
On 20 April 2024, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the above decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). In the interim, he sought stay and confidentiality orders. The Respondent consented to a conditional stay, pending this interlocutory hearing on 27 August 2024.
At hearing on 27 August 2024, the Applicant requested a stay with conditions, stating that he no longer wishes to be registered as a BAS Agent, but seeks to remain registered as a tax agent. This was because he acknowledges his errors, and the resultant losses to the Commonwealth.
The Applicant’s submissions ultimately addressed the key factors necessary for the assessment of a stay application, (addressed below) but also focused on what I considered to be a ‘special and exceptional circumstances argument’. Namely, that he has been the victim of scam by a bookkeeper whom he located on Facebook by the name of ‘Michael’, whose surname and whereabouts remain unknown. He has been unable to locate Michael, as the devices used to communicate with him have since been replaced, and searches on Facebook reveal ‘Michael’ no longer has an active account. Despite claiming to be a victim of a scam, the Applicant testified that he did not report the matter to Police, as he did not realise that he had been scammed until the ATO contacted him to make enquiries about the returns. The Applicant maintains that he is innocent of any wrongdoing; has been robbed of his chosen vocation, because of his lapse in judgment; and is a victim of a scam. These ‘special circumstances’ were, as I understand it, the foundation of his claim for a stay in full or alternatively, with conditions.
The Respondent strongly opposed the grant of a stay or confidentiality orders, maintaining that the Applicant’s conduct is so egregious that the application cannot be entertained.
There was a considerable amount of evidence before the Tribunal, including, voluminous T Docs; supplemented by a large bundle of authorities; multiple emails forwarded in batches by the Applicant; and written submission by the Respondent. As the Applicant appeared to be overwhelmed by this material at hearing, in the interests of procedural fairness, I assisted the Applicant in the course of his submissions by referring to the ‘stay principles’ by category. This allowed him to respond in seriatim, as he appeared to be unaware of such matters. I gained the impression that the Applicant assumed his ‘special circumstances’ argument would suffice, but I informed him otherwise. Further, I elected to reverse the order of submissions, with the Respondent outlining its contentions first, but then allowing the opportunity of reply, following the Applicant’s submissions.
Whilst I acknowledge the large bundle of authorities submitted by the Respondent, for which I am grateful, I consider such would be overwhelming for the Applicant, who could not possibly be able to digest the legal principles found therein. Further, it is axiomatic that each case turns on its own merits. To make the complex simple, I will deal with the facts as they present and articulate my conclusions by summarising the key contentions with reference to these authorities, without slavishly repeating them, given the absence of evidentiary contest.
THE REGULATORY CONTEXT
I have examined the regulatory context to obtain an understanding of the genesis of the decision.
Sub-section 2.5(1) of the TASA Act defines its objects as 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’. Sub-section 2.5(2) of the Act provides that the object in ss 3(1) is to be achieved, amongst other things, through providing for a system of registration and regulation of tax agents, a Code of Professional Conduct (Code) and a system of sanctions and discipline of tax agents.
Sub-section 30-10 of the Act provides for the Code which includes a series of mandatory obligations with which tax agents are expected to comply. The primary obligation is found in s 30-10(1), requiring a tax agent ‘must act with honesty and integrity’. Underlying that obligation is the fact that to obtain and maintain registration under the Act, the Board must be satisfied that a person is a fit and proper person to be registered.
A breach of the Code, or a failure to conform to the requirements of registration, renders a tax agent liable to termination of registration.[4] For breaches of the Code, there are other, lesser sanctions, that may apply such as cautions, suspensions, orders to complete prescribed training amongst others.[5] In this case, the Respondent terminated the registration, and imposed a five year embargo on reapplying.
[4] TA Act Part 4A.
[5] Sections 30-1 of the Act.
ISSUE
The issue is not, at this stage, whether the Applicant’s registrations should be terminated, or the degree of sanction imposed. Those matters are for final review hearing. The issues here are whether a stay is appropriate and whether a confidentiality order should be made.
Application of the law, findings and reasons relating to the stay application
The stay power is found in section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’). It is discretionary, and essentially allows me to stay (put on hold the operation of the reviewable decision), but only if;
i)I form the opinion that it is desirable to do so after taking into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review (this includes the applicant, the general public, interested third parties and the respondent); and,
ii)find that any such order is appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application before me.
In Scott v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2009] AATA 798 (‘Scott’) Downes J, President considered the matters (principles) that were relevant to the grant of a stay. They include but by no means are limited to;
I.the prospects of success;
II.the consequences of the refusal of a stay for the applicant and for others;
III.the consequences of granting a stay for the respondent;
IV.the public interest;
V.whether the refusal of a stay would render the final relief nugatory;
VI.the time between the granting or refusal of the stay and the final hearing and decision;
VII.and any other matters that might be relevant.
As indicated above, during the Applicant’s submissions, I circled back to these criteria/principles to ensure that he had fully presented his case with reference to the key factors necessary to my discernment. Other matters were also discussed as the Scott principles are by no means exhaustive. During the hearing, I also emphasised to the Applicant that he had the onus of establishing that the stay should be granted, as it was not automatic, and that the decision was not taken lightly given the impact to all parties concerned.[6]
[6] Re Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 199 at [11].
Prospects of success at hearing proper
To repeat, this is a decision in regard to a stay application, rather than a final review decision. However, to make a preliminary assessment of whether the decision subject to review is likely to be disturbed or set aside at any final hearing, I must inform myself of the factual and evidentiary issues; be satisfied that the Respondent has acted within its powers and provided a logical pathway of reasoning with reference to the evidence available, the provisions in the TASA Act and Code, and consider the Applicant’s contentions on the matter. Only then, can I discern and form a preliminary view on whether there is likely to be potential success at a hearing proper.[7]
[7] Re Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 199 at [20]; Evans and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 1408 at [171]-[172].
The review decision and its consequences have been outlined in paragraph 1 of these reasons. Ordinarily, I would slavishly summarise each allegation, however, this is unnecessary as the Applicant indicated that he did not seek to be registered as a BAS Agent moving forward and accepts he made mistakes. Relevantly in his written submissions (which were consistent with his oral representations) he stated (unedited):
As per the Stay Application dated 20/04/2024, I take responsibility and accountability for what occurred and sincerely regretful, I have ensured the mistakes committed by me have been rectified and promise the Regulator (TPB) that I will not repeat the errors again.
Because I was not involved in fraud or dishonesty since I was scammed prior to being registered as a BAS Agent and Tax Agent. And since I have been registered as a BAS Agent on 31/08/2021 and tax agent on 10/02/2022 and until today I was not involved in fraud or dishonesty, as I have made arrangements to repay balance of $43,401 (BAS Agent BAS Lodgement 52,962 minus 9561 my repayment to ATO). I have provided Bank Transactions Analysis in AAT Online Reference: RT64L9. At this stage, there is a credit balance of $3,762 on my ATO Activity statement 001.
Can I please request the Respondent to provide their instructions on how to repay the ATO for the 43,401 BAS Agent lodgments, since my affordability is $418 weekly and there is a credit of $3,762.
I had a difficult life repaying people as a result of the scam that occurred. Also, I did not receive any COVID-19 Government Grants such as Jobkeeper, Jobsaver, etc. I was working very hard to obtain the volunteer work experience to become a BAS Agent and Tax Agent because I love the accounting profession. I have the
attributes of competence, good fame, integrity, confidence, and character in dealing with the Commissioner, the TPB and clients. I have performed good actions for the clients and community. I have ensured Tax Obligations for clients and myself are lodged based on my learnings and experiences.Currently I have Professional Indemnity Insurance and public liability, I’m professional member with the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers (ICB), Institute of Financial Professionals Australia (IFPA), I have an active subscription from Wolters Kluwer (CCH Australia Limited) for my knowledge and experience. I’m a current Diamond Partner with software provider MYOB. I’m current Member of the National Tax and Accountants' Association (NTAA). For my continuous improvement in education and experience (I’m currently enrolled in many CPD courses which were all provided to the Registry and Respondent). I do admit there is a minor error in the contractual agreement with Mr Mustapha when becoming a BAS agent, the error is the $25 per hour, it should have been stated that Work Experience is on volunteer basis.
The Respondent and Registry can rely on all additional materials that were submitted to determine if I still need to repeat the Work Experience. If the AAT
is not satisfied after reviewing all my submissions, I can perform additional 2 years of Supervised Tax Agent work experience and would like to remain registered for the meantime. If the AAT approves, I won’t add new clients to my Tax Portal and will instead work for the Independent Supervised Tax Agent.According to all submissions that were provided to the Respondent and Registry. My conduct does not undermine the integrity of the taxation system and the professional standards expected of registered tax practitioners. The TPB, the Commissioner, clients and the public could have confidence that I would perform
my functions as a registered BAS and tax agent with competence and integrity.Can I please request the Respondent to re-consider the decision to terminate my Tax Registrations.
Can I please request the Respondent and Registry to settle the proceeding based on the submissions that were provided to the Registry and Respondent? I will complete all the courses that I’m currently enrolled and provide CPD Certificates to the Respondent and Registry.
Further, at hearing, the Applicant was referred to a document provided by the Respondent on 26 August 2024, titled ‘Aide Memoir Table of Failures’ (the table), which contained 19 alleged breaches of the Code resulting in a total of $293,000 in refunds claimed by the Applicant. In response to my specific questioning, the Applicant testified he did not have evidence to rebut 17 of the 19 alleged breaches, but could possibly disprove item 17 and 18 of the Table.
The Respondent submitted without any argument or evidence to rebut the findings in relation to the bulk of the breaches, the Applicant cannot demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success which must weigh against the grant of a stay, particularly given his acknowledgement of errors/breaches.
The Applicant concedes that he has made mistakes and is prepared to make good those errors. I accept these statements, but that does not detract from the foundation upon which the decision has been made, that is, significant breaches of the TASA Act and Code of Conduct which have not been denied with any vigour by the Applicant apart from the general statement that he was the ‘victim of a scam’, which he currently cannot prove. The Applicant has failed to establish how and why many of the refunds were directed into accounts either owned or controlled by him or by his associates. He testified that he is unable to obtain evidence as he was scammed by a Facebook bookkeeper, whose details he does not know, yet whom he entrusted with his finances. Further, the device with which he communicated with the bookkeeper no longer exists and the bookkeeper is no longer on Facebook. I will say at this juncture, that this tale beggars belief. However, truth has been known to be stranger than fiction and should the matter proceed to final review hearing, the Applicant may be able to contact his telecommunications provider to obtain past messages, and likewise approach Facebook to ascertain the identify of ‘Michael’ and issue a summons to compel evidence.
My preliminary view, which of course may change at any formal review hearing (should evidence by the Applicant be submitted) is the prospects of success are negligible. This is because, the evidence, allegations and findings point in one direction. The Applicant freely admits he has no evidence to disturb them.
I am satisfied this consideration counts against ordering a stay in the circumstances of this case.
The consequences of the refusal of a stay for the applicant and for others
The Applicant submitted that refusal of a stay will be financially, emotionally and professionally crippling. Further, the termination of registration will result in a loss of income and thereby an inability to meet his outstanding taxation obligations. His clients will also be affected as will future career prospects.
I accept that refusing to stay the decision will also cause inconvenience for the Applicant’s clients, but again, there was an insignificant amount of available evidence that was precise about how many clients or even which clients might be adversely affected by refusing the stay. All decisions terminating the registration of tax agents will, of course, necessarily inconvenience clients. However, if the Applicant proceeds to get his matter on expeditiously, and is able to dispel the allegations at the final review hearing, the impact will be minimal, if he is successful in reversing the decision.
Without doubt, as the BAS/tax practice was the primary source of income for the Applicant, the termination of registration does have detrimental financial consequences. It was explained to the Applicant that prejudice or hardship to an applicant is “hardly ever a sufficient basis for securing a stay,”[8] as such consequences are inherent when undertaking work in a regulatory environment.
[8]McLean and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 22 at [21]-[22].
The Applicant submitted the decision of the respondent is a blight on his professional career in which he has invested much time and study. Significant material was provided by the Applicant verifying his study, CPD commitment and education. However, this only reinforces that the Applicant must have known of the potential consequences of his behaviour, or the alleged behaviour of third parties, with reference to the TASA Act and the Code of Conduct, which clearly prescribe the obligations of BAS and tax agents. The Applicant cannot claim that the sanctions imposed and the investigation of him has taken him by surprise and that such outcome would be unexpected.
I am satisfied this consideration counts against ordering a stay in the circumstances of this case.
The consequences of granting a stay for the respondent and the public interest
I have, in previous decisions, slavishly emphasised the important role of tax agents in our society. Agents are the interface between the public and the tax office, helping Australian’s navigate and comply with the exceptionally complex and every changing taxation legislation. I consider the role to be a difficult juggling act, as not only is there a need to keep abreast of legislative changes and rulings, but there is also the requirement to manage client expectations, all in a time sensitive environment. The public have an expectation that their tax agent is ‘fit and proper’ to engage in the provision of such services and has the necessary experience and integrity to manage their affairs. Further, this is a legislative requirement one that is demonstrated through action and deed.
Who and what is the public interest? I find that the term ‘public’ is not restricted to the use of those utilising the services of the Applicant, but the definition extends to all Australians who rely on the integrity of the tax system to fund everyday services, including, but not limited to national security, education, health and welfare, just to name a few. It also includes registered agents who are also required to comply with the TASA Act and the Code.
Considering the evidence, I find the public interest is likely to be adversely affected by the Applicant continuing to act as a tax agent, even if for a limited time, especially in circumstances where he has admitted that his conduct has fallen short. Sight should not be lost of the fact that the whole of the scheme of the Act is directed to the public interest in supporting trust and confidence in tax agents.
Allowing a stay, in my view, would also frustrate the objectives of the Board/Respondent. It is a regulatory body. The public rely on it to impose, maintain, educate and reinforce standards required of all registered practitioners who provide these important BAS/Tax Agent services. Realistically, in this case, the Respondent has submitted much evidence which is not disputed by the Applicant and in which he freely admits he has no evidence due to him being the ‘victim of a scam’. I find that entertaining a stay with this factual background as context, is illogical and would impact the respondent because it would diminish the intention of the legislation and policy framework that imposes mandatory conduct obligations on practitioners; would reduce the integrity of any internal, external audit and investigation process in which it has engaged; would interfere with the promotion of a culture of compliance by those registered; and, finally could possibly erode robust systems for the reporting and investigating of misconduct.
Having regard to the above factors, which by no means are exhaustive, the refusal of a stay ensures that the public can retain confidence that the core obligations, with regard to conduct, are taken seriously by the respondent and are not interfered with, especially in circumstances where there is no evidentiary contest. This results in the promotion of integrity, reliability, and ethics - all of which engender public trust.
I am satisfied this consideration counts against ordering a stay in the circumstances of this case.
Whether the refusal of a stay would render the final relief nugatory;
The effects of the refusal to stay the proceedings will be temporary (assuming the Applicant is successful at hearing proper) and will encourage the Applicant to proceed to final hearing with some expediency. Both parties indicated that they could comply with any case management strategy that I deemed appropriate, with the aim to complete the review proceedings within this calendar year, which I confirm the Tribunal can accommodate. However, as indicated above, the Applicant may experience frustration and challenges in obtaining the outcome he seeks in the absence of key evidence relating to the alleged ‘scam’.
For these reasons, I find the stay will not render the final relief nugatory. I am satisfied this consideration counts against ordering a stay in the circumstances of this case.
Any other matters that might be relevant?
The Respondent informed me that it is ready to take a hearing date and could do so within four to six weeks. Consistent with the Charter of the Tribunal, the decision will be made soon thereafter. The fact that a hearing can be listed in the near future, and the matter will be decided shortly after that, will significantly ameliorate any hardship to the Applicant and inconvenience to his clients, should he be successful.[9]
[9] That approach was one that Downes and North JJ referred to as being desirable in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v PTLZ [2008] FCAFC 164 at [29].
I note that the Applicant made submissions on what I have labelled to be a ‘special circumstances’ argument, that is, he has acknowledged wrongdoing on the understanding that this acknowledgement may result in a reduction of the penalty imposed against him. Such matters, in the circumstances of this case, do not play a role in assessment of whether a stay is appropriate.
Weighed together, the findings above result in the conclusion that it is inappropriate to grant a stay. It follows that the application for a stay is refused.
Confidentiality
The Applicant made a blanket request for a confidentiality order, but during the course of submissions, indicated that he sought such orders only with respect to the stay proceeding, indicating he was eager for the “public to see the full story” where he would be vindicated at any final review hearing.
Subsection 35(3) of the AAT Act gives the Tribunal power to make directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of information tending to reveal the identity of a party or witness in a proceeding. To this end, the Tribunal may allocate a pseudonym to a party or witness and use this instead of their name.
Further, subsection 35(5) of the AAT Act makes plain that in considering whether to grant a confidentiality order under subsection 35(3) the Tribunal is to take as the basis of its consideration that ‘it is desirable’ that hearings of proceedings before the Tribunal be held in public and that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents received in evidence should be made available to the public.
It is clear from the terms of section 35 of the AAT Act, that the Tribunal must generally conduct a proceeding on the basis of openness, in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the fairness and integrity of that proceeding, and that the Tribunal should only depart from this approach if it is satisfied that there are proper and cogent reasons for doing so.[10]
[10] Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64; (1979) 2 ALD 33 (Pochi).
I understood that the Applicant was concerned about ‘possible embarrassment’, however well-established authority confirms this is not a sufficient basis for a confidentiality order.[11]
[11] Lawrance and CRS Australia (2004) 85 ALD 238.
I also learned the Applicant was concerned about the reputational impact and his ability to practice in this field moving forward in whatever guise. Again, well-established authority confirms this is not a cogent reason for a confidentiality order.[12]
[12] Devasahayam and Comcare [2010] AATA 784.
Unforeseen reputational damage and consequential financial fallout are not cogent reasons to displace the usual position that the hearing of a Tribunal proceeding must be in public and there is full transparency in relation to the alleged misconduct;[13] and so, this argument is not compelling in these circumstances.
[13] Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185.
On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the submissions and contentions of the Applicant with regards to his blanket confidentiality relief displace the factors set out in subsection 35(5) of the AAT Act because:
i.Such orders would hinder ‘open justice’, which is the paramount consideration in assessing whether such orders are to be made. This, in my view, is a crucial and central feature of our legal system. The reason for the principle of open justice is that, if the proceedings are fully exposed to public and professional scrutiny and criticism, interested observers are able to follow and comprehend the evidence, submissions and reasons for judgment, then public administration of justice will be enhanced and confidence in the integrity and independence of the Tribunal will be maintained. Not only does the conduct of proceedings publicly, and in open view, assist in removing doubts and misapprehensions about the operation of the system, it also limits the opportunity for abuse and injustice by those involved in the process, by making them publicly accountable;
ii.Departure from the principle of open justice is only justified where observance of the principle would in fact frustrate the administration of justice (Pochi).[14] To that end, an order restricting the public availability of information can and should only be made if it is really necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. Such an order must be clear in its terms, and do no more than is necessary to achieve the due administration of justice. The submissions before me did not allude to justice being frustrated overall if confidentiality orders were not granted;
iii.It is a trite statement that one of the consequences of the principle of open justice is that embarrassing, damaging and inconvenient facts may occasionally come to light. Such matters have rarely been regarded as a reason of itself for the suppression of evidence. Equally, it is common for sensitive issues to be litigated, and for information that is extremely personal or confidential to be disclosed. This is sometimes an unavoidable by-product, and a necessary consequence, of the application of the principle of open justice. These circumstances are no different;
iv.Furthermore, there must be some material before the Tribunal, upon which it can reasonably reach the conclusion that it is actually necessary to make an order of that type. Whilst there have been submissions made, none were compelling to bypass or circumvent the foundation of open justice. In fact in this case, the blanket request was vague and non-specific;
v.Finally, and possibly repetitively, it is relevant to again mention that there is nothing inherently confidential about the Respondent’s reviewable decision. It is the decision of a public regulator, and in the ordinary course of events is published openly. The Applicant has not referred to any other reason why this should not take place (with the exception of those above) which I have already determined to not be persuasive, nor proper grounds, to grant the relief sought.
[14] Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64.
DECISION
The applications for stay and confidentiality orders pursuant to ss 41 and 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) are refused.
I certify that the preceding 47 (forty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D Benk.
.....................[SGD]...................................................
Associate
Dated: 9 September 2024
Date(s) of hearing: 27 August 2024 Applicant: In person (MS Teams) Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Courtney Ensor with Ms Josephine Thornton
Solicitors for the Respondent: Tax Practitioners Board
6
6
0