MIHAJLOVIC and Tax Practitioners Board

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mihajlovic against a decision by the Tax Practitioners Board to terminate his registration as a tax agent and to preclude him from applying for registration for a period of 12 months. The dispute arose from Mr Mihajlovic's application for tax agent registration, where the Board initially determined he lacked the necessary relevant experience. The Board offered registration with a condition restricting his services to Business Activity Statement (BAS) agent services, which Mr Mihajlovic accepted. Subsequently, the Board found that Mr Mihajlovic had breached this condition by continuing to provide broader tax agent services, albeit under the supervision and sign-off of another registered tax agent.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether a valid condition had been imposed on Mr Mihajlovic's tax agent registration, whether he had breached that condition, and consequently, whether the Board's decision to terminate his registration and impose a 12-month preclusion period was justified. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented, including correspondence and records of telephone conversations, to determine the clarity and enforceability of the condition, and Mr Mihajlovic's awareness and adherence to it.

The Tribunal reasoned that the condition restricting Mr Mihajlovic's services to BAS agent services was clearly communicated through the registration certificate and accompanying letter, and was further confirmed in a subsequent telephone conversation. It found that Mr Mihajlovic was aware of this restriction, having acknowledged it in his communications and during the telephone discussion. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Mihajlovic breached the condition by continuing to provide tax agent services beyond the scope of BAS agent services, even though he had arranged for another registered tax agent to review and sign off on these services. The Tribunal affirmed the Board's decision, finding that termination of registration and a 12-month preclusion period were appropriate in the circumstances.