1. 30-10(1) - You must act honestly and with integrity
2. 20-5(3)(a) Company has ceased to meet registration requirement that each director is a fit and proper person
3. 20-5(3)(d) Company has ceased to meet registration requirement that it has a sufficient number of registered tax practitioner individuals to provide tax agent services to a competent standard and to provide supervisory arrangements

Breaches

P&G ACCOUNTING SOLUTION PTY LTD

• Code 30-10(1) – You must act honestly and with integrity
• 20-5(3)(a) The company must satisfy the Board that each director of the company must be a fit and proper person
• 20-5(3)(d)(i) The company must have sufficient number of individuals, being registered tax practitioners, to provide services to a competent standard and to carry out supervisory arrangements

On 4 December 2025, after completing an investigation, the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) decided to terminate the tax agent registration of P&G Accounting Solution Pty Ltd (the Company) and impose a four-year non-application period, on the basis that the Company ceased to meet the following tax practitioner registration requirements:
1. paragraph 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA that each of its directors be a fit and proper person, as the Board determined its sole director, Mr Parampreet Singh Rajput (Mr Rajput) was no longer a fit and proper person; and
2. subparagraph 20-5(3)(d)(i) of the TASA that it must have a sufficient number of individuals, being registered tax practitioners, to provide services to a competent standard and to carry out supervisory arrangements, on the basis that the Board found the Company’s sole supervising agent, Mr Rajput, is not considered sufficient to provide tax agent services to a competent standard and to carry out supervisory arrangements.
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 Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), in the Company’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 in in Kaur v P & G Accounting Solution Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 30 (Kaur Judgment);
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.

The TPB also determined that the Company breached the Code by:
1. conduct which resulted in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia finding the Company had contravened the civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), with Judge Forbes making the following findings in relation to the Company’s employment of Ms Kaur:
a. it failed to pay the minimum rate of pay;
b. it failed to pay wages on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly cycle;
c. it failed to make sufficient superannuation contributions to satisfy the obligations
d. under the Superannuation Guarantee;
e. it failed to pay accrued annual leave on termination;
f. it failed to provide written notice of termination and a notice period of payment in lieu thereof;
g. it failed to provide Ms Kaur with a copy of the Fair Work Information Statement;
h. it failed to pay Ms Kaur’s wages at least monthly;
i. it required payments from Ms Kaur;
j. it subjected Ms Kaur to undue influence or undue pressure, by reason of her migration status, to agree to a deduction from the amounts to which she was lawfully entitled in relation to the performance of work; and
k. it failed to provide Ms Kaur with pay slips within one day of making payment to her in relation to the performance of work or at all.
2. failing to notify the TPB in writing within 30 days of the Kaur Judgment handed down on 23 January 2025, despite this being an event relevant to the Company’s registration, as required under the TASA.
3. engaging in the following conduct, through the actions of Mr Rajput, stipulated in a witness statement in the course of the Company’s 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

In making its determination, the TPB noted that that these ‘kickback payment’ arrangements extended over significant periods and had serious impacts on vulnerable staff, particularly those on sponsored visas.
The TPB determined that terminating the Company’s registration was appropriate after considering the severity of the Company’s contraventions of the FW Act. Taking into account the seriousness of the Company’s conduct, and the need to maintain the integrity of the registered tax practitioner profession, the TPB determined the Company should be prohibited from re­applying for registration under the TASA for a period of four (4) years from the date its termination takes effect, in accordance with subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA.

On 15 January 2026, the Company applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for a stay and review of the TPB’s decision of 4 December 2025 to terminate its tax agent registration and impose a period of four (4) years during which it 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.