On 23 April 2026, after completing an investigation, the Tax Practitioners Board (the TPB) decided to make a Publication Decision of its findings that unregistered tax agent Peter Ristevski, having been previously terminated and a Disqualified Entity, had:

1. contravened section 50-5 by providing services that he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, are tax agent services, and he charged or received a fee or other reward for providing the tax agent services, whilst neither a registered tax agent, BAS agent or legal practitioner.

2. contravened section 50-10 by advertising that he would provide a tax agent service whilst he is not a tax agent, BAS agent or legal practitioner.

The TPB found Mr Ristevski had:

1. represented clients in their dealings with the Commissioner when lodging or preparing and directing the lodgement of taxation documents including income tax returns (ITR), business activity statements (BAS) and objection forms, which listed him as their representative and tax agent or tax professional, and were lodged through another entity, C&N Southwest Sydney Pty Ltd, to and through which he provided tax agent services under its credentials to its and his own clients.

2. redirected or caused the redirection of proceeds of fees for tax services and tax refund amounts to be deposited into the accounts he had sole or joint control over, including personal accounts and those of unregistered and previously terminated and Disqualified Entity Chan & Naylor Liverpool Operating Pty Ltd, without client’s knowledge or authority.

3. provided services which included providing tax opinions and advice provided to support pre-insolvency, and phoenix like and creditor defeating arrangements for his and C&N Southwest Sydney Pty Ltd’s clients. He assisted entities to avoid tax obligations including employer and tax obligations through insolvency arrangements such as Pay As You Go Withholding (PAYGW), Good and Services Tax (GST) and Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) obligations. 

4. provided assistance in the backdated appointment of straw directors, and changes in share registry records, to redirect potential creditor and Director Penalty Notices to third parties without the means to pay, including parties who through criminal convictions had previously been automatically disqualified from acting as directors. Two of the parties who were identified in evidence to the TPB subsequently were bankrupted

5. undertaken deliberate, sophisticated conduct and designed to obscure the arrangements through which clients met with Peter Ristevski to obtain opinions or advice which related to their tax entitlements or obligations. This extended from ITRs and BASs to sophisticated creditor defeating and phoenix-like schemes to avoid obligations including taxation debts due to the Commissioner and other creditors.

6. This included conduct:

   1. to hide that Peter Ristevski ultimately controlled the review and direction of preparatory and lodgement activities of the employees under his management and direction. 

   2. given a veneer of legitimacy through the establishment of ‘management agreements’ and ‘services agreements’, and contrived labour hire arrangements to interpose an agent registration through a proxy entity and with a straw director. 

   3. where lodgements occurred through tame agents on migration visas in circumstances they were open to exploitation and coercive control.

   4. where management fees and rent, to mask the receipt of fees or rewards, through accounts Peter Ristevski controlled through structured payment arrangements under Peter Ristevski’s control.

7. The Board determined that Peter Ristevski had repeatedly advertised his tax agent services as the “Financial Surgeon” and “The 1% Accountant” whilst unregistered through an online presence and various social media channels, including YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook and other platforms.

In determining that it was appropriate to make a publication decision, the TPB noted that:

1. The nature and purpose of the Board’s power to make a Publication Decision is to support the object of the TASA. The publication power increases transparency of the profession and is available in circumstances where an entity’s registration lapses or the entity ceases to exist prior to another sanction taking effect.

2. It helps to protect and empower the public to make informed decisions about tax practitioners. It also assists employers to make decisions about prospective employee tax practitioners. It is also likely to deter agents from engaging in conduct that breaches the TASA.

3. The TPB was empowered to make administrative findings of contraventions of the civil penalty provisions

4. A publication decision will ensure visibility for the public and industry to ensure they are informed of the Board’s findings and to act as a deterrence to similar behaviour.

5. That a finding of contraventions of the TASA and a publication decision serves as a mechanism by which Peter Ristevski is considered a Disqualified Entity in circumstances where his name and the details of his conduct are available to the public and industry such that they are aware of the risks that engaging him will pose.

6. There is public interest in the broader public knowledge of a regulator's decision because it provides scrutiny and awareness of the related issues and also allows affected individuals including clients to make informed decisions in managing their own affairs.