1. 30-10(1) - You must act honestly and with integrity
2. 30-10(7) - You must ensure that a tax agent service that you provide, or that is provided on your behalf, is provided competently
3. 20-5(3)(a) Company has ceased to meet registration requirement that each director is a fit and proper person

On 9 May 2024, after completing an investigation, the Tax Practitioners Board (Board) decided to terminate the tax agent registration of Can Do Accounting Services Pty Ltd (the Company) and prohibited them from reapplying for registration for a period of two years. The Board found that the Company had breached subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(7) of the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) in the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (TASA). The Board also determined that the Company did not satisfy the registration requirement that each director be a fit and proper person, after finding that its sole director was not a fit and proper person.

The Board found that the Company breached the Code by:
1. Failing to act honestly and with integrity by:
1. making false or misleading statements in its application for tax agent registration renewal, by listing a supervising agent for the Company when that tax agent had not consented, nor performed any services of a supervising agent for the Company.

2. Failing to ensure that a tax agent service that it provided, or that was provided on its behalf, was provided competently by:
1. Lodging over 3000 lodgements over a four year period, under the Company’s tax agent registration and failing to provide supervision and control because during that period the Company either had no supervising agent or no supervision or authorisation from the listed supervising agent.

The Board also found the Company’s sole director was not a fit and proper person. In determining they were not a fit and proper person, the Board had regard to (amongst other things) the fact that they:
1. caused the Company to breach the Code;
2. engaged in conduct that they knew, or ought to have known, failed to meet the standards the Board would expect from a person in their position, by failing to understand and meet his obligations under the TASA;
3. held a position of influence and trust and failed to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession.

On 12 June 2024, the Company made an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, now the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), for review of the TPB’s decision and to stay the implementation of the TPB’s decision.

On 3 July 2024, the ART made an interim stay order until the ART heard and determined the Stay Application. On 20 December 2024, the matter was heard. On 9 January 2025, the ART refused the Company’s application for a stay of the Board's decision and the termination came into effect.

A copy of this decision can be found here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/24.html

On 4 June 2025, the ART formally dismissed the proceedings as the Company had withdrawn its application for review of the TPB’s decision.