HILL and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Hill for a stay of the Tax Practitioners Board's decision to cancel his registration as a tax agent and to prevent him from reapplying for registration for five years. The application was heard by Mr P W Taylor SC, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the decision to cancel Mr Hill's tax agent registration should be stayed, and whether the decision to prevent him from reapplying for registration for five years should also be stayed. In considering these issues, the Tribunal had to assess Mr Hill's prospects of success in the substantive review proceedings, the public interest, and whether a stay would be futile.

In assessing Mr Hill's prospects of success, the Tribunal noted that such an evaluation must consider the available information, the potential for new material, and the incomplete awareness of all issues. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions emphasizing caution in this regard. The core purpose of the Tax Agent Services Act 2013 (TASA) is to ensure tax agent services are provided to appropriate professional and ethical standards, with registration being a fundamental mechanism for this. Eligibility for registration requires an applicant to be a "fit and proper person," which generally involves good fame, integrity, and character. This assessment can be informed by various factors, including convictions for fraud, dishonesty, serious taxation offences, bankruptcy, or imprisonment within the preceding five years. The Tribunal noted that Mr Hill's personal tax debt, along with those of associated companies, was substantial and ongoing at the relevant times, and that his statements to the Board regarding these liabilities appeared inaccurate.

The Tribunal rejected Mr Hill's application for a stay. It found that the available material strongly indicated significant outstanding personal and corporate taxation debts, and that Mr Hill's assertions to the Board about these matters were likely misleading. Given the extent of these apparent contraventions of the TASA's fit and proper person requirements, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Hill had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in the substantive review to warrant a stay of the Board's decision.