TPB + Professional Body Investigations

HWLE Lawyers acts for accountants, tax agents, BAS agents, R&D consultants and businesses big and small who find themselves under scrutiny by the Tax Practitioners Board and/or the professional bodies.

Practitioners engage us because we bring an intricate knowledge of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 and by-laws to their cases, along with a forensic analysis of their circumstances. No stone is left unturned to protect businesses, livelihoods, staff and clients.

We help by advising on cases, preparing correspondence and breach notifications to authorities, attending meetings and interviews, and litigating cases in the Tribunal and Federal Court, but only if required. We also do so by relieving practitioners of the stress and pressure that come with these matters, wherever we can.

We’ve acted on cases involving allegations of:

  • outstanding tax obligations;
  • unregistered tax agent services;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • lack of fitness and propriety;
  • trust defalcations and redirected GST refunds issued by the Tax Office;
  • rogue business owners and employees in businesses running side-hustles;
  • tame agents;
  • false statements and declarations made to the Board and the Tax Office;
  • aggressive tax planning;
  • security breaches;
  • poor or no supervision, control and oversight in the business;
  • penalties and interest suffered by clients; and
  • disqualified entities.

Authorities are better funded than ever before, more active, more assertive and now armed with significantly stronger enforcement powers. For instance, from 1 October 2026, the Board has access to broader criminal sanctions, broader civil penalties, enforceable undertakings, suspension powers and 10-year bans under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Act 2026.

Practitioners engage us to act early and fast. Whatever stage a matter has reached, from an initial preliminary enquiry letter or cease and desist letter through to an infringement notice, a proposed enforceable undertaking, or a show cause or termination letter, we can step in and take control of the process on your behalf.

If you have received a query, complaint notice, infringement notice or investigation letter from the Board or the professional bodies, or you simply want to know where your practice stands under the new regime, contact our team today for a confidential discussion. Early advice often protects your registration and gives you alternative ways forward before matters escalate to the Tribunal, disciplinary hearings or the Federal Court.

View all team members Related insights

Frequently asked questions

Practitioners can respond to enquiries by the Board or the professional bodies to protect their business, livelihood, staff, and clients. Authorities will usually provide the opportunity to respond to allegations that have been made, including any sanction that may be imposed. Practitioners can also appeal decisions in some cases. Any response given to the Board or the professional bodies should be professional, thorough, supported with evidence and on time.

The Board registers and regulates tax agents and BAS agents across Australia under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. The professional bodies, such as CA ANZ, CPA Australia and the IPA, register and regulate their members under their own by-laws.

The Board and professional bodies regularly carry out professional conduct investigations, such as:

  • please explain letters;
  • preliminary enquiries;
  • comprehensive investigations; and
  • disciplinary hearings.

Enquiries or investigations usually start with a client complaint, Tax Office or ASIC referral, outstanding tax obligations, or more serious allegations of conduct including conflicts of interest, adverse court findings, or the misappropriation of Tax Office refunds or client monies. Even a routine query can escalate quickly, so early advice matters.

Yes. Unregistered entities providing, advertising, or falsely claiming to provide tax agent or BAS services face civil penalties and criminal penalties.

Yes. The Board can immediately suspend a practitioner’s registration for up to 90 days without commencing or finalising an investigation, where serious misconduct risks harm to clients or the tax system.

Unlike the Tax Office, there is no objection process if you don’t agree with a decision made by the Board. But you can seek review in the Tribunal or appeal to the Federal Court. You may also need to get a stay depending on the decision that’s been made.

The maximum non-application period has been extended from 5 to 10 years, during which you remain a disqualified entity and cannot practise without Board approval.

TPB + Professional Body Investigations

Our experience

  • Confidential accountant Responding to a show cause notice from the CPA Australia for sanctions applied by the Tax Practitioners Board. Although the practitioner forfeited their membership and a small fine was imposed, we protected the business, livelihoods, staff and clients.
  • Mr Zartaloudis Running the stay application against the Tax Practitioners Board in Zartaloudis and Tax Practitioners Board [2025] ARTA 2477. Although the application was unsuccessful, we protected the business, livelihoods, staff and clients.
  • Confidential national accounting group Responding to concurrent investigations from the Tax Practitioners Board for adverse findings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, undisclosed income and intentional disregard findings. Although the practitioner’s registration was terminated, we protected the business, livelihoods, staff and clients.
  • Confidential accountant Making a significant breach disclosure to the Tax Practitioners Board notifying it of a rogue employee in the practice. The employee ran a side-hustle using the accountant’s systems for another deregistered accountant. No response was received.
  • Mr Mulcahy Running the stay application and substantive application against the Tax Practitioners Board for Mr Mulcahy in Mulcahy & Co Accounting Services Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2026] ARTA 2. Although the applications were unsuccessful, we protected the business, livelihoods, staff and clients.
  • Confidential accountant Responding to a please explain letter from the Board about allegations of unregistered tax agent service, obstructing the administration of tax laws, and failures of supervision, control and oversight. We achieved a favourable result for the practitioner and the case was closed.
  • Private valuation business Making a significant breach disclosure to the Tax Practitioners Board notifying it of the lapse of registration under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 and subsequent unregistered tax agent service. No response was received and the client was ultimately re-registered.
  • Confidential accountant Advising a practitioner about the disposal of their practice after the Tax Practitioners Board terminated the practitioner’s registration and the period for seeking a stay in the Tribunal lapsed. Although access to the portal and other systems were cut off, we protected the business, livelihoods, staff and clients.
  • Mr Gage Running the stay application and substantive application against the Tax Practitioners Board for Mr Gage in AWG Services Pty & Ano and Tax Practitioners Board [2025] ARTA 1881 / 2943. The case settled confidentially.
  • Confidential CFO Running the substantive application against the Tax Practitioners Board in the Tribunal for failing to renew a CFO’s BAS agent registration. The Board withdrew its allegations in full and an application for defective administration was made.
  • Confidential accountant Responding to a show cause notice from the CA ANZ for the unauthorised access of confidential client materials, including TFNs and income pre-fills. The CA ANZ sanctioned the practitioner, but applied a confidential pseudonym.
  • Confidential accountant Advising a practitioner about the prospects of particular sanctions being imposed after the Tax Office referred the practitioner to the Tax Practitioners Board for allegations of improper access to COVID-19 economic measures.