Lunn and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) - [2025] ARTA 697

Lunn and Tax Practitioners Board (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 697 (3 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  Jeff Lunn and Gregoriades Sofocleous & Associates Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Tax Practitioners Board
Tribunal Number:                2024/9928; 2024/9962

Tribunal:General Member Darian-Smith
Place:Sydney
Date: 3 June 2025

Decision:The Tribunal refuses the Applicant’s application for an order in each of these matters under s.32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) staying the operation or implementation of the decisions of the Respondent dated 3 October 2024. The interim stay order made on 20 February 2025 is discharged.

................................[SGD]........................................
General Member Darian-Smith
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – termination of tax agents’ registration and imposition of two-year ban – application for an order staying operation or implementation of banning order – factors relevant to the grant of a stay – prospects of success – consequences for applicant of refusal of a stay – the public interest – application for stay order refused
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s.41
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) s.32
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) s350-10 of Schedule1
Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) ss. 2-5, 20-5, 20-15, 30-10, 30-15, 30-20,30-25,30-30, 40-5, 40-25, 60-95
Cases
Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250; 82 AAR 241
Cross and Tax Practitioners Board (2020) 171 ALD 337; [2020] AATA 1471
Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4210
Hanieh and Tax Practitioners Board [2024] AATA 3251
Hopfner and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 851
Iseppi and Tax Practitioners Board (2020) 169 ALD 653; [2020] AATA 1523
Mclean and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 22
Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 124
Re Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 199
Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2009) 51 AAR 114; [2009] AATA 798
Taxation Guru Pty Ltd & Anor and Tax Practitioners Board (2019) 166 ALD 5628; [2019] AATA 3249
Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 3047
Thomas and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 757
Statement of Reasons

On 3 October 2024, the Respondent (Board) made decisions:
a.terminating the tax agent registration of Mr Lunn (Applicant in application 2024/9928) under s. 40-5(1)(b) Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TASA) and imposing a period of two years from the date the termination takes effect within which he may not apply for registration under s.40-25(1) of the TASA (Lunn Decision).
b.terminating the tax agent registration of Gregoriades Sofocleous & Associates Pty Ltd (GSA) (Applicant in application 2024/9962) under s.40-15(1)(b) Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TASA) and imposing a period of two years from the date the termination takes effect within which it may not apply for registration under s.40-25(1) of the TASA (GSA Decision).
Collectively the Lunn Decision and the GSA Decision are referred to as the Reviewable Decisions.
The Reviewable Decisions were the outcome of the Board’s investigation conducted under Sub-division 60E of TASA and were made after the Board had determined that:
a.Mr Lunn had failed to comply with ss. 30-10(1), 30-10(2), 30-10(7), 30-10(9) and 30-10(10) of the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) contained in the TASA and had ceased to meet the requirement for tax practitioner registration that he is a “fit and proper person” under s. 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.[1]
b.GSA, of which Mr Lunn was the sole director, had ceased to meet the requirement for tax practitioner registration that each director is a “fit and proper person” under s. 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.[2]
[1] T9/2900 – 2911; T10/2912 – 2922.
[2] T16, T17.
The Reviewable Decisions were to have taken effect on 25 November 2024.
On 25 November 2024, the Applicants each made an application under s.41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), now s.32(2) of the AdministrativeReview Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), to stay the operation or implementation of the Reviewable Decision (Stay Applications).
On 20 February 2025, the Tribunal made orders by consent that the Reviewable Decisions be stayed on an interim basis until the Tribunal hears and determines the Stay Applications or until further order subject to the condition that the Applicants not accept any new clients in the meantime (Interim Stay Order).
The Applicant has filed correspondence dated 12 March 2025 which is being treated by the Tribunal as the Applicant’s written submissions for the purposes of the stay applications (Applicant’s Submissions).
The Board has filed written submissions, entitled Respondent’s Submissions in Response to Stay Applications dated 26 March 2025 (Respondent’s Submissions).
THE TASA REGULATORY AND DISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK
The TASA contains the regulatory regime for tax agents such as Mr Lunn and GSA. The object of the TASA is contained in s.2-5, which provides:
(1) The object of the Act is 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.
(2) This is to be achieved by (among other things) providing for:
(a) the registration and regulation, by a national Board, of entities that provide tax agent services; and
(b) a Code of Professional Conduct for registered tax agents and BAS agents; and
(c) sanctions to discipline entities in relation to their conduct as a registered tax agent or BAS agent; and
(d) sanctions where tax agent services are provided otherwise than in accordance with this Act.
In addition to having the relevant qualifications, experience and professional indemnity cover, and fulfilling annual continuing legal education requirements, Mr Lunn must satisfy the Board that he is a “fit and proper person” before he can be registered as a tax agent. In deciding whether it is satisfied, the Board must have regard to criteria, including “whether the individual is of good fame, integrity and character.”[3]
[3] TASA s.20-15(a).
The Code is contained in s.30-10 of the TASA. For the purposes of the Reviewable Decisions, Board relies on sub-sections (1), (2), (7), (9) and (10) of the Code, which provide as follows:
Honesty and Integrity
(1) You must act honestly and with integrity.
(2) You must comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of your personal affairs…
Competence
(7) You must ensure that a tax agent service which you provide, or that is provided on your behalf, is provided competently…
(9) You must take reasonable care in ascertaining a client’s state of affairs, to the extent that ascertaining the state of those affairs is relevant to a statement you are making or a thing you are doing on behalf of a client.
(10) You must take reasonable care to ensure that taxation laws are applied correctly to the circumstances in relation to which you are providing advice to a client.
“Personal affairs” in (2) above, is not a defined term in the TASA, but the Applicant makes no submission that the Board’s finding that he did not comply with the taxation laws did not relate to his personal affairs.
The “fit and proper person” eligibility requirement is set out in s.20-5(1)(a), which provides:
Individuals
(1) An individual, aged 18 years or more, is eligible for registration as a registered tax agent or BAS agent if the Board is satisfied that:
(a) the individual is a fit and proper person.
The Reviewable Decisions were the outworking of an investigation of the Applicants’ conduct by the Board. The investigation process is contained in Subdivision 60-E of the TASA. Upon completion of the investigation, sanctions can be imposed by the Board if it is satisfied that breaches of the Code have occurred.
The range of sanctions is provided for in Subdivision 30-B of the TASA. The Board has the power under s.30-15 of the TASA to take one or more of the following steps:
a.issue a written caution.
b.make orders requiring completion of further training or education, limiting the range of services which the tax agent can provide or requiring service delivery by the agent to be provided under supervision.
c.suspend the tax agent’s registration; and
d.terminate the tax agent’s registration.
Termination of an individual tax agent’s registration occurs under Subdivision 40-A of the TASA. Relevantly, the Applicant’s registration can be terminated under s.40-5(1)(b), in circumstances where he ceased to meet one of the tax practitioner registration requirements, including that he be a “fit and proper person” under s. 20-5(1) (a) of the TASA. If a tax agent’s registration is terminated, the Board can determine the period, not exceeding 5 years, during which the tax agent cannot re-apply for registration.[4]
[4] TASA s.40-25(1).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE REVIEWABLE DECISION
The Board relied on extensive evidence in making the Lunn Decision. The findings as to Mr Lunn’s alleged breaches of the Code are summarised in some detail in the Respondent’s Submissions (RS) as follows:
a.Code, s.30-10(1) – failing to act honestly and with integrity: RS [12]. The breaches relied on by the Board included Mr Lunn having made false and misleading statements to the Commissioner in his capacity as a tax agent and as trustee for the Lunn Family Trust, and his preparing and lodging 14 income tax returns (ITRs) which included excessive or incorrect deduction claims.
b.Code, s.30-10(2) – failing to comply with taxation laws in conduct of personal affairs: RS [13]. The breaches relied on by the Board included failing to properly complete aspects of the Lunn Family Trust’s BAS and underreporting net income in the Lunn Family Trust’s ITR.
c.Code, s.30-10(7) – failing to ensure tax agent services provided competently: RS [14]. The breaches relied on included matters arising from the lodging of ITRs for his clients Ms Kakarla and Mr Nemani and lodging client ITRs with excessive or incorrect WRE deductions claimed.
d.Code, s.30-10(9) – failing to take care in ascertaining client affairs: RS [15] – [16]. The failures to take care related to the ITRs lodged for Ms Kakarla and Mr Nemani and the ITRs lodged for 14 clients (referred to in (a) above). and
e.Code, s.30-10(10) – failing to take reasonable care in ensuring tax laws applied correctly: RS [17]. The failures relied on by the Board principally related to the ITRs lodged for 14 clients (referred to in (a) above).
The breaches of the Code by Mr Lunn led to the determination by the Board that he had ceased to meet the tax practitioner requirement under s.20-5(1)(a) of the TASA that he is a fit and proper person[5] and that he was no longer of good fame, integrity and character under s.20-15(a) of the TASA.[6]
[5] Respondent’s Submissions, [18(a)].
[6] Respondent’s Submissions, [18(b)].
As the result of the Lunn Decision, the Board was satisfied that GSA had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirements under s. 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA, which facilitated the GSA Decision.
The Applicant’s Submissions make it clear that Mr Lunn intends to put on evidence about several matters at the substantive hearing, which include:
a)    as to the audits carried out by the ATO which identified excessive or incorrect claims in the ITRs for 14 clients.
b)    the issues arising from the ITRs lodged for Ms Kakarla and Mr Nemani.
c)    factual matters going to competence, including systems and procedures and internal controls introduced to the GSA business. and
d)    issues for the business arising from the COVID pandemic and personal issues, including health issues of his partner.
Mr Lunn will argue that he is a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent. In the event that the Tribunal determines that his conduct is to be sanctioned, he contends that a written caution rather than the termination of his registration tax agent would be the appropriate outcome.
TRIBUNAL’S POWER TO GRANT A STAY
The Administrative Appeal Tribunal’s power to stay was found in s.41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). The equivalent provision in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) is found in s.32(2), which reads:
“However, on application by a party to a proceeding for review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision if the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.”
It is important to bear in mind that s.32(2) operates as an exception to the General rule which is stated in s.32(1) of the ART Act, as follows:
“The making of an application to the Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.”
The Tribunal must observe the pre-conditions set out in s.32(7) of the ART Act before it makes an order staying a reviewable decision, which are to give the parties to the application for review an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the making of a stay order[7] and that it “has taken into account the interests of any person who may be affected by the review of the decision.”[8]
[7] ART Act s.32(7)(a).
[8] ART Act s.32(7)(b).
The power to order a stay under s.32(2) is only to be exercised for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review. It is the Applicant who, for practical purposes, bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that a stay is desirable for the requisite purpose, and the Tribunal must have sufficient evidence before it to draw that conclusion.[9]
[9] Re Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2011] AATA 199, [11].
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill makes it clear that although the wording in s.32 of the ART Act is different in some respects to the wording of s.41 of the AAT Act, those changes were made to reflect “modern drafting practices” and “not to affect the operation or effect of the provision.”[10] It follows that the authorities relevant to the principles to be applied in respect of s.41 of the AAT Act, remain relevant when considering s.32 of the ART Act.
[10] Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill, [339].
The range of factors relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of a stay are well established by the decision in Re Scott andAustralian Securities and Investments Commission[11] (Scott), and the Tribunal cases which have followed it[12]. The 6 matters listed by Downes J. in Scott are as follows:
a.The prospects of success.
b.The consequence for the applicant of the refusal of a stay.
c.The public interest.
d.The consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not.
e.Whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted; and
f.Other matters that are relevant.[13]
[11] [2009] AATA 798.
[12] See for example Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 3047 at [59]; Birdseye and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1250 (Birdseye).
[13] [2009] AATA 798, [4].
The Tribunal notes that the Scott factors should not be treated as a complete checklist, as that risks losing sight of the discretion which the Tribunal is being asked to exercise when considering whether it is “desirable” to award a stay “for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.” The Tribunal adopts what was said in Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority by SM Cameron:
“Whilst these matters identified by Downes J in Re Scott are relevant to the exercise by the Tribunal of the discretion conferred upon it by section 41(2), they are not a complete code or a “checklist” that limits or fetters the exercise of such discretion.”[14]
[14] [2018] AATA 3047 at [60].
Further, the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature and content of the reviewable decision, will affect the respective weighting to be given to each of the factors under consideration with respect to the granting of a stay.[15] Matters specific to the Scott factors which are under consideration in this matter are dealt with below.
[15] Hopfner and Tax Practitioners Board [2019] AATA 851, [7].
STAY FACTOR (A) PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS
The Tribunal’s consideration of the Applicants’ prospects of success for the purpose of determining the stay application does not require the Tribunal to conduct a preliminary hearing of the review application (on the evidence then available). As was explained in Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority,[16] by Senior Member Poljak:
“The authorities establish that a consideration of the prospects of success of an application and so the merits of a substantive application must not involve the Tribunal undertaking a full consideration of those merits. While it is neither necessary or appropriate for me to determine the substantive matter on an interlocutory application, I must be satisfied that that the applicant has some prospects of success.”[17]
[16] [2018] AATA 4210.
[17] [2018] AATA 4210, [7].
It follows that the Tribunal must satisfy itself that the Applicants’ prospects of success are high enough to clear the threshold of “some prospects of success” before a stay can be granted.
The Board’s primary submission on this factor is that the Applicants “have no sufficient prospect[s] of overturning the Boards’ decisions …”[18]
[18] Respondent’s Submissions, [24].
In Thomas and Tax Practitioners Board[19], a tax agent case, Senior Member Lazanas (as the Deputy President then was) said:
“Regarding the Applicant’s prospects of success in relation to the Decisions Under Review, the Applicants did not point to the existence of any cogent facts or the possibility of legal error that may be argued at the hearing which may lead to a different result including a reduction in the four-year preclusion period. That is, the Applicant’s failed to demonstrate, even at a high level, that they have sufficiently arguable cases: see Re Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 124, [39]-[40].”[20]
[19] [2023] AATA 757.
[20] [2023] AATA 757, [35].
The Board contends, applying the Thomas “yardstick”, as to whether the Applicants can point to cogent facts or the possibility of legal error which might lead to a different result at the final hearing, that Mr Lunn has no sufficient answer to the Board’s findings as to his failure to act honestly and with integrity.[21]
[21] Respondent’s Submissions, [25].
The Board argues that Mr Lunn’s case will require him to challenge the correctness of amended assessments, which he is precluded from doing in the Tribunal by s. 350-10 of Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).[22] The Board says that its finding in relation to Mr Lunn’s conduct in lodging ITRs on behalf of 14 clients that included excessive or incorrect deductions will also not be open to challenge.[23] The Board also contends that there is no real prospect of the Applicants overturning the Board’s findings as to breaches of the Code ss. 30-10 (2), (7), (9) and (10).[24]
[22] Respondent’s Submissions, [25(a)].
[23] Respondent’s Submissions, [25(b)].
[24] Respondent’s Submissions, [26] – [27].
The Tribunal is not prepared at this stage to make a finding that the Applicants have no prospects of success in their applications for review, but their prospects are not strong enough to weigh in favour of the granting of a stay.
STAY FACTOR (B) CONSEQUENCES FOR THE APPLICANT OF THE REFUSAL OF A STAY

It is in the very nature of an order terminating the Applicants’ registration as tax agents that financial and other consequences will flow from the de-registration. As was observed by the Tribunal in Taxation Guru Pty Ltd & Anor and Tax Practitioners Board:[25]
“The termination of the registration will have consequences in terms of the Applicants’ ability to maintain clients and the intended franchise operation. However, this is not a unique circumstance and would be faced by anyone in the position of losing their tax agency registration.”[26]
[25] (2019) 166 ALD 528; [2019] AATA 3249.
[26] (2019) 166 ALD 528,538; [2019] AATA 3249 at [45].
Regard must be had to the fact that the Applicants are working in a regulated occupation and that the Board’s role is likely to involve lawful intervention, where it deems that to be necessary. In Iseppi and Tax Practitioners Board,[27] Deputy President McCabe stated:
“Where questions have been raised about the risks of allowing the applicants to remain in business, the applicants should not necessarily expect the benefit of the doubt at this stage of the proceedings. As the Tribunal has pointed out elsewhere, an individual who participates in a regulated occupation enjoys a measure of protection from competition in order to maintain standards. Anyone who is admitted to that occupation must accept the risk of the regulator’s lawful intervention in that cause.”[28]
[27] (2020) 169 ALD 653; [2020] AATA 1523.
[28] (2020) 169 ALD 653, 657; [2020] AATA 1523 at [24].
Whilst it is understandable that an applicant will be very focussed on this factor, it is only one of the relevant factors to be considered, and weighed, by the Tribunal. It will seldom, of itself, determine whether a stay is to be granted. As the Tribunal said in Mclean and Australian Securities and Investments Commission:[29]
“There would appear to be little doubt that the Banning Order has caused and will continue to cause significant hardship to the Applicant as indeed it would to most if not all persons who were the subject of such an order.
In and of itself that is hardly ever a sufficient basis for securing a stay but in this case, it is relevant in the context of the other matters raised.”[30]
[29] [2016] AATA 22.
[30] [2016] AATA 22 at [21] - [22].
The Board accepts, and the Tribunal agrees, that if the Reviewable Decisions are implemented, there will be resultant financial and other hardship for the Applicants[31] and some inconvenience for clients of GSA. However, the Board submits in relation to the latter, that the inconvenience to those clients of GSA would be “outweighed by the substantial risk of the Applicants continuing to provide tax agent services to them in view of the Board’s findings.”[32]
[31] Respondent’s Submissions, [38].
[32] Respondent’s Submissions, [41].
This factor weighs slightly in favour of the grant of a stay but is outweighed in this case by the other relevant factors including the public interest.
STAY FACTOR (C) THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The Board submits that the public interest weighs substantially against the granting of stays in this case because its findings against the Applicants relate to conduct involving numerous, serious breached of the Code over a period of years. The Board states:
“The conduct incorporates multiple instances of incompetence and dishonesty, including for Lunn’s personal gain. It involves many failures to comply with and uphold the taxation laws as regards Lunn’s personal affairs in his capacity as trustee for the Lunn Family Trust. It extends to a palpable lack of care and competence in the provision of taxation services to clients.”[33]
[33] Respondent’s Submissions, [30].
In Hanieh, Senior Member Benk considered what is contemplated by the “public interest”:
“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.”[34]
[34] [2024] AATA 3251, [29]-[30].
In Cross and Tax Practitioners Board[35], Deputy President Boyle said of the public interest, in a similar context to the present:
“The public interest is served in tax agents, upon whose honesty the system of lodgement of tax returns depends, being held to, and being seen to be held to, the highest standard of professional and ethical conduct.”[36]
[35] (2020) 171 ALD 337; [2020] AATA 1471.
[36] (2020) 171 ALD 337, 352; [2020] AATA 1471, [68].
The Respondent submits that it is not in the public interest for the Applicants to be able to continue to practice as registered tax agents in the period from the determination of the Stay Applications until the final determination of their applications for review. The Tribunal agrees with the Board’s submission that the following aspects of the public interest are in play and support the Board’s position:
a)“(a) the need to ensure that tax agent services are provided to the public in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.
b)(b) the protection of the public and the maintenance of an atmosphere of mutual trust between the Board and tax practitioners. and
c)(c) the need to support public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession and the tax system, and the standing of the tax profession in the public’s eye.”[37]
[37] Respondent’s Submissions, [31] (citations omitted).
The Tribunal is persuaded that the public interest factor weighs strongly against the granting of stays in this case.
STAY FACTOR (D) CONSEQUENCES FOR THE RESPONDENT IN CARRYING OUT ITS REGULATORY FUNCTION
The consequences for the Board, were a stay to be granted, should not be overstated, as, by the act of terminating the Applicant’s registration it could be said to have performed its general deterrence function. The relevance of this factor was explained by Senior Member Olding in Birdseye as follows:
“It is, however, not irrelevant that granting the stays would mean that clients would be exposed to risk notwithstanding the Board having carried out its function of investigating the conduct of the applicants, finding what appears to be serious and repeated non-compliance and taking what it regards as appropriate action. Exposing clients to such risk is contrary to the object of TASA to ensure that tax agent services are provided to the public in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.”[38]
[38] (2020) 82 AAR 241,261; [2020] AATA 1250, [109]. See also Hanieh at [31].
The Tribunal accepts the Board’s submission that where the factual findings underpinning the Reviewable Decisions are not readily able to be challenged by the Applicants on the evidence and the arguments as they now stand, the need for protection of the Board’s reputation as the decision-maker and an effective regulator dictates that this factor should weigh against the grant of a stay.[39]
STAY FACTOR (E) WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY IF A STAY WERE NOT GRANTED
[39] Respondent’s Submissions, [45].
The Applicants have not sought to argue that their respective applications for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay was to be refused. The Reviewable Decisions include a determination that the Applicants cannot apply for re-registration for a two-year period. From the standpoint of Mr Lunn and GSA, there is a practical need for their respective applications for review to be heard and determined, irrespective of whether a stay is granted.
In Cross and Tax Practitioners Board[40], Deputy President Boyle explained, in respect of this factor:
“In relation to the First Applicant, while I accept that he will suffer financial loss if the stay is not granted, it is not the case that the substantive application would be rendered nugatory or pointless. He will still be facing a two-year prohibition on applying for registration which, if he wants to practice as a tax agent before the expiry of that period would prevent him from making an application for registration, so there will still be obvious utility in his seeking an overturning of that decision or reduction in the prohibition period.”[41]
[40] (2020) 171 ALD 337; [2020] AATA 1471.
[41] (2020) 171 ALD 337, 352-353; [2020] AATA 1471 at [73].
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicants will suffer some financial loss if the stay is not granted, but this is not a case where their applications for review will be rendered nugatory or pointless if their stay applications are refused.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
For the Reasons set out above, the Tribunal has determined that the weight of the relevant factors, particularly the public interest factor, is against the granting of stay orders. The relief sought in the Stay Applications must be refused.
Any prejudice to the Applicants which flows from the Tribunal refusing the Applicants’ applications for a stay will be managed best by the parties working with the Tribunal to have the substantive proceedings heard and determined as soon as that can sensibly be achieved. The Tribunal notes that programming orders to progress the matter to a substantive hearing have already been made.
It follows that the Stay Applications are refused, and the Interim Stay Order is discharged.
Date of Hearing:  19 May 2025
Date of Decision:                  29 May 2025
Applicants:  Mr J. Lunn (self-represented/representing GSA Pty Ltd)
Counsel for the Respondent:    Mr L. Molesworth
Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms J Mills, Mr A Seremitis (Tax Practitioners Board)