iscoverAustralia’s “increasingly difficult to justify” two-tier tax advice regulation system should be considered for reinvention, a tax practitioner has proposed.
‘Time for reform?’: Accountant proposes change to tax advice regulation
13 August 2025
•
9 minute read
An accountant has started a conversation around tax advice regulation in Australia, calling for potential reform to differentiate the tax advice allowed to be given by practitioners and lawyers.
In a LinkedIn post, Nitin Saby, former ATO director, posed the question that perhaps it was time to reinvent how tax advice was regulated in Australia, with the post attracting an array of mixed responses and opinions.
You’re out of free articles for this month
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Saby noted that the current system of lawyers being able to provide tax advice without TPB registration, compared to that of accountants and advisers having to be registered with the TPB, was no longer working, and “neat distinctions” between the two had collapsed.
“This framework had clear logic back in 2009. The TPB assumed lawyers already operated under robust state-based oversight, while accountants needed national regulation. The professional boundaries seemed clear-cut,” he said.
“Fast-forward to 2025, and those neat distinctions have collapsed. The work is identical. Lawyers and accountants handle the same tax structuring, ATO disputes, and cross border advisory matters. The technical complexity and client impact are indistinguishable.”
The post attracted comments both in support and against Saby’s argument, with one comment stating the regulation worked well as it currently stood.
“As both a tax agent and lawyer, I can confidently say that tax agents and lawyers provide very different services and should not be lumped together under the same regulation,” the comment said.
“There was a reason the tax agent services act was introduced and a look back through the historical context explains why.”
Saby added that the current system also created a fragmented client experience, as identical advice came with different consumer protections, ethical codes, and regulatory oversight, which created confusion about what standards applied.
In addition to this, compliance was duplicated and resulted in multidisciplinary practices having to navigate two separate regulatory frameworks for the same client matter.
This then drove an elevation in costs and increased complexity without an improved outcome, according to Saby.
“This dual system creates regulatory gaps where consumer protection varies by adviser type, not service quality, market efficiencies through duplicated compliance costs and fragmented oversight, as well as professional confusion as practitioners struggle to understand which rules apply when,” he said.
“If we’re serious about quality, accountability, and efficiency, the solution is straightforward: one standard for all paid tax services, regardless of professional background.”
Other comments on the post, both for and against Saby’s argument, proposed that the differentiation between both lawyers and accountants came down to the particular needs of the client.
A comment for the argument proposed that lawyers practising in tax law should be accredited as specialists by the Law Institute to provide tax advice.
“As an accountant and tax agent we have to translate the tax law requirements into a tax return as a bridge from the financial statements. We refer to lawyers if the matter has to go to court,” the comment said.
Another comment from a tax agent who opposed Saby’s proposal said they referred clients to tax lawyers when a matter was “particularly complex or litigious”.
“My advisory role is similar to theirs but I’m affordable for the majority of their needs with ATO representation. It’s not appropriate for qualified tax lawyers to have TPB registration as they’re distinct advocates for their clients, not contributing to the operation of the tax system like tax agents are,” the comment said.
Saby said the purpose of his post was to put his personal view “out there” and aimed to start a conversation among the profession.
“The goal isn’t to diminish professional diversity – it’s to ensure that when Australians pay for tax advice, they get consistent quality and protection regardless of the letters after their adviser’s name,” he said.
“Is it time for reform? The current system served its purpose, but regulatory frameworks should evolve with the professions they govern. Shouldn’t our regulation reflect that reality as the lines between legal and accounting work continue to blur?”
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
