Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board

This matter concerned an appeal by Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd and its director, Mr. Rizkallah, against decisions made by the Tax Practitioners Board. The dispute arose from Mr. Rizkallah's improper access to the tax portal of a former client, Mrs. Bardetta, who was engaged in litigation against him. The Board found that Mr. Rizkallah had been evasive, dishonest, and non-compliant in his dealings with them, and had also failed to file his personal income tax return on time. These actions led the Board to conclude that Mr. Rizkallah no longer satisfied the requirement of being a fit and proper person for registration as a tax agent.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. Rizkallah and Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd continued to meet the fit and proper person requirements for registration as tax practitioners, and if not, what period should preclude them from re-registration. The Tribunal was required to consider the gravity of Mr. Rizkallah's conduct, including his evasiveness and misrepresentations to the Board, and to balance the interests of the applicants against the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax profession.

Deputy President McCabe P found that Mr. Rizkallah's behaviour demonstrated fundamental character flaws rather than mere ignorance. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions to terminate the registration of both Mr. Rizkallah and Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd as tax practitioners, concluding that deregistration was the only appropriate course given the demonstrated character flaws. The Tribunal varied the period of non-registration for Mr. Rizkallah, imposing a period of three and a half years, finding that this longer period would serve as both specific deterrence to him and general deterrence to other tax agents.

In relation to Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd, the Tribunal set aside the Board's decision to impose a three-year non-registration period. Instead, the Tribunal decided that no such period should be imposed on the company, reasoning that the message of general deterrence was adequately communicated by the action taken against Mr. Rizkallah personally.