The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld the Tax Practitioners Board’s (TPB) decision to terminate Mr Peter Mihajlovic’s tax agent registration and impose a 12-month non-application period after he breached a condition of his registration. 

When Mr Mihajlovic applied for tax agent registration in 2014, the TPB imposed a ‘BAS Services’ condition on his registration to limit the scope of services he could provide based on his experience and qualifications. However, the TPB determined Mr Mihajlovic had breached this condition of his tax agent registration by lodging income tax returns (ITRs) on a regular basis from 2014 to 2021 under his own registration number (RN).  

The TPB issued Mr Mihajlovic a ‘cease and desist’ letter, but he continued to lodge further ITRs under his own RN. 

In the AAT proceeding, Mr Mihajlovic disputed the TPB’s findings, claiming he was never informed by the TPB that he would need to lodge ITRs under the RN of a supervising registered tax agent. The AAT rejected this claim, noting that the condition imposed on his registration was unambiguous and that a reasonable person would pay heed to what was in writing in a formal certificate of registration that was issued by a statutory regulatory authority such as the TPB. 

Mr Mihajlovic also claimed he had a conversation with a TPB officer which led him to believe the condition on his registration had been rendered ineffective, meaning he was doing nothing wrong by lodging ITRs under his own RN. However, a ‘personal memo’ of this conversation prepared by Mr Mihajlovic himself showed that he was, in fact, aware of the condition on his registration.  

Mr Mihajlovic then changed his evidence to suggest it was someone other than a TPB officer who told him he could lodge ITRs under his own RN. Given this changing evidence, together with a lack of credible documentary evidence, the AAT rejected Mr Mihajlovic’s evidence and the assertion that a conversation with a TPB officer could effectively remove his ‘BAS Services’ condition.  

In affirming the TPB’s decision to ban Mr Mihajlovic from re-applying for registration for a 12-month period, the AAT considered Mr Mihajlovic’s age and circumstances. Additionally, the AAT noted that this preclusion period should act as a deterrent for other tax practitioners who would consider ignoring the conditions attached to their registration.