Lost clients, lost livelihood: fair TPB suspension requires hearing, lawyer says

“An immediate hearing [can be held] within five days to figure this out, and then on the seventh day, issue [the suspension],” he said.

He called the revocation of natural justice a “closed doors” approach, stressing that an immediate hearing would be fairer given the requirements.

According to the explanatory memorandum (EM) for the amendment, it read: “The TPB must notify the practitioner in writing of the suspension within 7 days of the decision.”

“Allowing the TPB to suspend the registration for a period of 90 days allows the TPB sufficient time to investigate misconduct, and determine an appropriate longer-term sanction, while lessening the risk to the community,” it added.

“What you normally have is if there were accusations or allegations made against you, you would be provided an opportunity to rebut that … Here, you don't have that. Here, for 90 days, there is no way that you can review it, from my reading under the TAS Act,” Ahmed said.

“While the TPB is not required to consult with a person before suspending the person’s registration, the person will still be afforded natural justice and other review mechanisms as part of the substantive decision-making process,” the EM said.

“That just seems very unfair, and it seems like [they] should be allowed to actually rebut it,” Ahmed said.

“I don't know exactly how a sole practitioner would deal with it, because, you know, the reality is that sole practitioners, they're struggling to just manage with the tax law changes.”

Ahmed noted that while bigger firms with multiple registered tax agents can pass clients on to other partners if they are suspended, sole practitioners do not have this option.

“[For] a practising sole tax agent. Where do [they] push these clients? But for 90 days, [they] can do nothing right, and [they] have to let them know as well.”

“You have an accountant who you are going to deregister for 90 days, and he's going to lose all his clients.”

“Let's just say that this never gets proven. So there's a lot of embarrassment and reputational risk … it could be absolutely nothing ... But it just seems like it's a little bit too much on the regulators' side, and there are no clear definitions of what is what?”