Thanabalasingam and Tax Practitioners Board (Taxation)

This matter concerned an application for registration as a tax agent by Mr Thanabalasingam, who sought to review a decision by the Tax Practitioners Board. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Thanabalasingam possessed the requisite relevant experience, specifically whether he had worked under the supervision and control of a registered tax agent for the required period. The Tribunal was ultimately not satisfied that this condition had been met.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had acquired the equivalent of 12 months of full-time work experience under the supervision and control of a registered tax agent within the preceding five years, and whether his work had substantially involved one or more of the taxation services specified in section 90-5 of the Act. The court was required to determine if the applicant's engagement with Tax Success Pty Ltd, whether as a franchisee or employee, met the statutory requirements for supervision and control.

The court reasoned that the terms "supervision" and "control" are ordinary English words implying oversight, superintendence, and direction, designed to ensure that aspiring tax agents are practically equipped to perform their duties professionally and ethically. It held that simply stating one worked in a registered tax agent's practice and completed returns was insufficient to demonstrate supervision and control; more evidence was needed, typically the opinion of a registered tax agent. Crucially, the court noted that Mr Gleeson, the applicant's supervisor, had his own registration terminated due to inadequate supervision arrangements and other compliance failures. Furthermore, the applicant's own evidence did not sufficiently detail what supervision or control was exercised, leading the court to conclude it could not be satisfied that the applicant had met the regulatory requirements for relevant experience.

The court affirmed the decision of the Tax Practitioners Board.