Peterson and Tax Practitioners Board - [2018] AATA 93

Peterson and Tax Practitioners Board [2018] AATA 93 (31 January 2018)

Division:Taxation and Commercial Division
File Number(s): 2015/6018
Re:Mark Peterson
APPLICANT

AndTax Practitioners Board
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President S A Forgie
Date:31 January 2018
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal decides:

with effect from 1 March 2018, to affirm the decision of the Tax Practitioners Board dated 14 October 2015 to terminate the applicant’s registration as a tax agent.

............[sgd].........................................................

Deputy President S A Forgie

Catchwords

TAX AGENT – registration – whether breaches of code of professional conduct – decision affirmed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 2A, 33, 35, 37, 39

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 s 995-1

Tax Agent Services Act 2009 ss 2-5, 20-5, 20-45, 30-1, 30-5, 30-10, 30-15, 30-25, 30-30, 60-95, 60-125, 90-1, 90-5

Cases

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321; 21 ALD 1; 94 ALR 11

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v State of NSW (No 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1995) 93 CLR 127

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124

Re Lobo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 583; (2010) 116 ALD 639; 52 AAR 304

Re Guild, & Re Legal Practitioners Ordinance (1978) 32 ACTR 13

Re SHTX and Tax Practitioners Board [2016] AATA 451

Shi v Migration Agents’ Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286; 248 ALR 390; 48 AAR 345; 103 ALD 467; 82 ALJR 1147

Stasos v Tax Agents’ Board of New South Wales [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974; (1990) 21 ALD 437

Su v Tax Agents’ Board South Australia (1982) 61 FLR 1; 13 ATR 192

Surinakova v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 596; (1991) 33 FCR 87; 26 ALD 203

Secondary Materials

Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Agent Services Bill 2006

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President S A Forgie

Under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TAS Act), Mr Peterson was registered as a tax agent on 1 March 2010 for a period expiring on 1 September 2016. On 21 October 2015, the Tax Practitioners Board (Board) notified Mr Peterson that it had decided on 14 October 2015 to terminate his registration as a tax agent under s 30-30 of that legislation. It did so on the basis that he had breached ss 30-10(2), (7), (13) and (14) of the TAS Act.[1] The termination would take effect from 25 November 2015. With the consent of the parties, I stayed the operation of the Board’s decision under s 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) until the application was determined or until further order provided that Mr Peterson did not provide tax agent services to any new clients while the stay order was in operation. That order was made on 17 December 2015. I made various orders regarding the lodgement of the parties’ material and the matter was heard on 7 December…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peterson and Tax Practitioners Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] AATA 93
Decision Date: 31 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the appeal of Mr. Peterson against a decision by the Tax Practitioners Board to refuse his application for registration as a tax agent. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Peterson's conduct constituted breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct, as prescribed by the *Tax Agent Services Act 2013* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Peterson had contravened specific provisions of the Code, particularly those relating to honesty and integrity, competence, and acting in the best interests of his clients. This involved an assessment of his past professional conduct and whether it demonstrated the fitness and propriety required for registration as a tax agent.

Deputy President Forgie P affirmed the Tax Practitioners Board's decision, finding that Mr Peterson had indeed breached the Code of Professional Conduct. The reasoning focused on the cumulative effect of Mr Peterson's actions, which demonstrated a lack of integrity and competence in his dealings with clients and the Australian Taxation Office. The Tribunal applied the principles of good character and professional responsibility as mandated by the *Tax Agent Services Act 2013* (Cth) and relevant case law concerning the assessment of tax agent registration applications.

Orders