Ex-tax agent’s stay application of TPB’s civil case dismissed

Ke was previously a registered tax agent from May 2005 to November 2017. The board alleges that between July 2021 and July 2025, six taxpayers provided evidence about dealing with Ke to have their tax returns prepared and lodged.

The board also alleges that the clients’ myGov accounts were used to prepare and lodge returns, and that fees were invoiced through Amas Accounting & Finance.

Furthermore, it is alleged that documents given to taxpayers used another registered agent’s name and registration number. That agent said she had not authorised their use.

Ke disputed providing tax agent services, and said she had only performed voluntary administrative support work at the accounting firm and denied charging or receiving fees.

In February 2026, the court granted an interim injunction that prevented her from preparing or lodging income tax returns for a fee or reward while unregistered, until the case was determined or the court ordered otherwise. The judge believed that the board had a sufficient preliminary case and that an injunction would protect the public.

In its civil case brought against Ke, the board sought a declaration that Ke breached the law by providing paid tax agent services while unregistered. It also sought a pecuniary penalty, a permanent injunction that would prevent Ke from providing paid tax agent services while unregistered, and an order requiring her to pay the board’s legal costs.

In the current judgment, the board opposed Ke’s attempt to pause the case and wanted it to proceed towards trial.

However, in May 2026, Ke filed an application seeking interlocutory orders that the hearing be adjourned, the respondent be granted an extension of time to file and serve evidence and submissions, and the current requirement for the respondent to file evidence by June 2026 be vacated or extended.

Ke also sought that alternatively, the proceeding be stayed pending the determination of related criminal proceedings involving the respondent.

In June 2026, Ke sought that the proceedings be stayed until further order of the court, all procedural deadlines be suspended during the stay, and the proceeding be relisted for directions upon lifting of the stay.

Ke sought a stay of the board’s proceeding in the Federal Court on two separate bases. First, she is the subject of separate criminal proceedings as she faced 16 charges in the Brisbane District Court. She argued that the criminal proceedings and this current proceeding in the Federal Court overlap as they both dealt with tax returns and information that she had provided to the ATO.

However, the judge refused to stay the case on this count as the criminal case related to distinctly different events. The criminal case related to Ke obtaining financial advantages from the Commonwealth by deception, using forged documents, and influencing a public official.

The board’s case, on the other hand, related to providing paid services to taxpayers while unregistered.

The judge said there is no overlap on the available evidence between the two proceedings either by way of a “temporal” or “subject matter” overlap.

“Broadly claiming that matters relate to tax returns or that issues regarding her honesty will be in issue, is insufficient,” the judgment read.

“Each count in the District Court will have to be specifically proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Board’s contentions and allegations regarding contraventions of the TAS Act will also have to be specifically proved, on the balance of probabilities.

“For these reasons and on this basis, Ms Ke has not discharged the burden she bears to demonstrate on proper grounds that the proceeding in this court should be stayed.”

Ke’s second ground for her application for a stay was her health as she relied on evidence that she had been diagnosed with lupus and lupus nephritis, which are said to be chronic and permanent lifelong conditions.

However, the judge said that she is (or was at the time of that report) fully compliant with her medication, and as such, this evidence does not support a submission that Ke is unable to properly participate in any trial in this proceeding. However, the judge noted that Ke may need additional hearing time to accommodate further breaks during the proceeding.

Ke also relied on an incomplete psychiatric report to support her application for a stay, which the judge found was insufficient to support a stay.

Nevertheless, the judge considered it appropriate that the registrar issue a certificate for an attempt to arrange free legal assistance for Ke as her recent affidavits state that she is “unemployed”, and she advised from the Bar table that her representation in the District Court criminal proceedings was funded by legal aid.

“Ms Ke also stated from the bar table, that legal aid would not fund legal assistance for the proceeding in this Court. This would also favour a referral certificate,” the judgment read.

The court ordered for both applications to be dismissed and for Ke to pay the board’s application costs. Ke was also ordered to file any additional affidavits for the final hearing, while the board was also ordered to do the same.