CLARITY ON BREACH REPORTING RULES FOR TAX PRACTITIONERS

๐—–๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฏ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜… ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€

The Tax Practitionerโ€™s Board (๐—ง๐—ฃ๐—•) has clarified its position on registered tax practitionersโ€™ breach reporting requirements in relation to the Code of Professional Conduct (๐—–๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ).

Initially set out under the ๐˜›๐˜ข๐˜น ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต 2009 (Cth) (๐—ง๐—”๐—ฆ๐—”), the Code was later supplemented under the ๐˜›๐˜ข๐˜น ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜š๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ฆ๐˜ด (๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ต) ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ 2024 (Cth), to strengthen the integrity of the tax system.

However, the breach reporting requirements have been subject to considerable criticism from the industry especially in relation to the subjective nature of the requirements.

In response, the TPB updated its policy guidance to clarify a tax practitionerโ€™s obligations and when, and what kinds of breaches, should be reported.

๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—š๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜€

Tax practitioners must notify the TPB if they have โ€œreasonable groundsโ€ to believe they, or another tax practitioner, has breached the Code and the breach is a โ€œsignificant breachโ€.

In its latest update to TPB(I) 43/2024, the TPB confirmed that โ€œreasonable groundsโ€ is a lower standard to that of being certain. It requires a "solid foundation or basis for their belief". Some facts and evidence are required; however, tax practitioners need not have conclusive proof.

At times, a practitioner might be unsure of whether they have โ€œreasonable groundsโ€. In these cases, if there is a "reasonable basis or foundation for the claim", they should err on the side of caution and report.

Not all cases are so clear. There are, always, less obvious or 'borderline' cases. Ultimately, guidance indicates tax practitioners need to make a professional judgement call.

๐—ฆ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ฏ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ต

Section 90-1 of the TASA defines what constitutes a โ€œsignificant breachโ€. Unless a breach falls squarely into one of the clearly defined categories, determining whether an โ€œotherwise significantโ€ breach has occurred, effectively a judgment call, can be, depending on the circumstances, debatable.

Helpfully, new guidance indicates a breach will be more readily identified as โ€œotherwise significantโ€ if it involves โ€œintentional, negligent or reckless conduct or otherwise egregious behaviourโ€. Paragraph 98 of TPB(I) 43/2024 outlines further considerations that may be of assistance.

The above guidance does not negate the tax practitionerโ€™s own obligation to undertake an independent assessment and make a professional judgement call.

Smailes Krawitz assists tax agents understand their obligations under the TASA.

Follow us on LinkedIn for our latest updates HERE.

The material in this article is provided only for general information. It does not constitute legal or other advice. 

Limited Liability by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Read the Smailes Krawitz Disclaimer HERE.

Previous
Previous

TAXPAYERโ€™S WORDS DURING AUDIT COME BACK TO HAUNT HIM AT THE TRIBUNAL

Next
Next

SERIOUS FINANCIAL CRIME TASKFORCE SHARPENS ITS FOCUS: IT'S PRIORITIES FOR 2026