1. 30-10(1) - You must act honestly and with integrity
2. 30-10(2) - You must comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of your personal affairs
3. 20-5(1)(a) Individual has ceased to meet registration requirement that they are a fit and proper person

PARAMPREET SINGH RAJPUT

Code breaches
• Code 30-10(1) – You must act honestly and with integrity
• Code 30-10(2) – You must comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of your personal affairs
• 20-5(1)(a) Individual has ceased to meet registration requirement that they are a fit and proper person

On 4 December 2025, after completing an investigation, the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) decided to terminate the tax agent registration of Mr Parampreet Singh Rajput (Mr Rajput) and impose a four-year non-application period, as he ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement that he be a fit and proper person.
The TPB also determined that Mr Rajput had breached subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) by:
1. conduct which resulted in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia finding him to be involved in his company’s (P&G Accounting Solution Pty Ltd) contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in Kaur v P & G Accounting Solution Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 30 (Kaur Judgment)
2. failing to notify the TPB in writing within 30 days of the Kaur Judgment being handed down on 23 January 2025, despite this being an event relevant to Mr Rajput’s registration, as required under the TASA.
3. engaging in the following conduct stipulated in a witness statement in the course of his employment of an individual:
a. demanding several bulk payments from the employee
b. instructing the employee make payments to him for her full wages and her superannuation, known as a ‘kickback wage payment’
c. demanding the employee pay him for her visa applications
4. being identified by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to have intentionally made false and misleading statements to the Commissioner and to have engaged in tax evasion by failing to correctly report figures in several income tax returns (ITRs), resulting in significant tax shortfalls across multiple income years.

The TPB determined that Mr Rajput was no longer a fit and proper person on the basis that he:
1. engaged in conduct which breached subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code in the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TASA);
2. he was found to have been involved within the meaning of subsection 550(2) of the FW Act, in P&G Accounting’s contraventions of section 45, section 125, subsection 323(1), subsection 325(1), paragraph 325(1)(b) and subsection 344(e) of the FW Act;
3. Judge Forbes stated in the Kaur Judgment that Mr Rajput was found to be less than truthful, involved in the kickback arrangement by accepting payments from Ms Kaur and agreeing to the extension of time of leave to avoid disclosure of the allegation;
4. he failed to notify the Board in writing within 30 days as per paragraphs 30-35(1)(c) and 30-35(4) of the TASA when an event relevant to his registration occurred. He did not notify the Board until 29 April 2025 in his renewal application, approximately three months after the Kaur Judgment had been handed down;
5. he deliberately made false statements to the Commissioner of Taxation by lodging incorrect returns and statements;
6. he engaged in conduct, including “kickback payment” arrangements which were televised by the “A Current Affair” program, which undermined public trust and discredited the integrity of the tax profession.

In making this finding, the TPB noted that the conduct was neither isolated nor anomalous. In relation to the kickback wage payment arrangements, the TPB noted that these ‘kickback payment’ arrangements extended over significant periods and had serious impacts on vulnerable staff, particularly those on sponsored visas. The TPB further noted that the magnitude of the adjustments as a result of the ATO audit reflects poorly on his compliance over an extended period. The TPB also noted that given his extensive experience in providing tax services, it was reasonable to expect compliance with his own tax obligations. Instead, Mr Rajput demonstrated deliberate behaviour aimed at minimising his tax obligations.

Taking into account the seriousness of Mr Rajput’s conduct and the need to maintain the integrity of the registered tax practitioner profession, the TPB also determined Mr Rajput should be prohibited from re-applying for registration under the TASA for a period of four (4) years from the date his termination takes effect, in accordance with subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA.

On 15 January 2026, Mr Rajput applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for a stay and review of the TPB’s decision of 4 December 2025 to terminate his tax agent registration and impose a period of four (4) years during which he is prohibited from applying for registration.
On 26 March 2026, the ART refused the Company’s application for a stay of the TPB’s decision.
The review of the TPB’s decision is yet to be heard.