OZI Tax Advisors Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board

This matter concerned applications for a stay of decisions by the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) to terminate the tax agent registrations of OZI Tax Advisors Pty Ltd and Mr Osama Suriya. The applications were brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 41(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The TPB had determined that Mr Suriya, as the director of OZI Tax Advisors Pty Ltd and in his personal capacity, had failed to comply with subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(7) of the Code of Professional Conduct, and consequently no longer met the requirements for registration as a tax practitioner, specifically the requirement to be a "fit and proper person" under section 20-5(1)(a) of the *Tax Agent Services Act 2009* (Cth) (TASA).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether to grant a stay of the TPB's termination decisions pending the final determination of the review applications. In considering these applications, the Tribunal was required to assess the prospects of success of the review applications and the balance of the public interest. The TPB's decisions were based on findings that Mr Suriya had provided significantly different financial figures to a broker compared to those lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the 2019 financial year, and had failed to lodge amended income tax returns or notify relevant parties of these discrepancies.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' submissions, which highlighted the severe financial and personal hardship that the termination of registration would cause, including the inability to work in the industry and meet financial commitments. The applicants argued that the incident was a careless mistake, that changes had been made to systems and policies, and that Mr Suriya was remorseful and willing to provide security to abide by TPB rules. However, the Tribunal found that the explanation provided by Mr Suriya regarding the discrepancies in financial figures did not adequately address the reasons for the differing reports and the lack of subsequent action. The Tribunal noted that a reasonable tax practitioner should have been aware of the unusual nature of the request for amended returns with significantly different figures and should have taken steps to notify the broker or financial institution of the discrepancies.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the applications for a stay. The refusal was based on the assessment that the applicants had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their review applications, and that the public interest, which includes upholding the integrity of the tax agent profession and protecting the public from practitioners who do not meet the required standards, weighed against granting a stay. The termination of Mr Suriya's registration was therefore to take effect as scheduled.