Declared in contravention in 2013, back under a new name, silent before the Court. This time the restraint is permanent.
In 2013, Dowsett J declared 27 contraventions of the Tax Agent Services Act against him, with pecuniary penalties and a 3-year disclosure injunction. He started again under “Truckies Tax Accountants”. The TPB came back. He filed nothing and did not attend the hearing. He has now been permanently restrained.
Tax Practitioners Board v Hinckfuss (No 2) [2026] FCA 529.
Truckies Tax Accountants
Mr Hinckfuss ran a website and Facebook page under “Truckies Tax Accountants”, advertising tax agent services to the public [65-66]. He prepared and lodged income tax returns or amendments for 11 clients [53]. He prepared and lodged BAS for one of them across the four quarters of 2021 [59]. He had clients pay his fees into an associated entity’s account [55, 61]. He was not a registered tax agent at any relevant time [56, 67]. The 2013 contraventions were 25 under s 50-5(1) and 2 under s 50-10(1), applied at [83].
Silence is not a defence
Mr Hinckfuss was served via substituted service across multiple channels. He did not file a notice of address. He did not file a concise statement in response despite being ordered to. He did not attend any hearing [17-22].
Wheatley J held that failure to file an ordered concise statement in response operates in two ways: as a default under r 5.22 enlivening the r 5.23 discretion, and similar to r 16.07(2), with the allegations not specifically denied and accepted for the purposes of default judgment [33].
Each element of ss 50-5(1), 50-5(2) and 50-10(1) was made out on the face of the concise statement [52-69]. Return preparation is a “quintessential tax agent service” [45]. Payment to an associated entity still satisfies “fee or other reward” [55, 61]. Permanent injunction granted under s 70-5(1). Pecuniary penalty hearing to follow [84-86].
Interesting observations
First, a 3-year disclosure injunction in 2013 did not stop Hinckfuss. The Court has now permanently restrained him. Repeat offending is what crystallises permanence under s 70-5(1) [83-84].
Second, you cannot escape s 50-5 by routing payment through a related entity. Hinckfuss had clients pay his fees into an associated entity’s account, not his own. The “fee or other reward” element still caught him - “reward” captures the payment regardless of who receives it [55, 61].
Third, this is useful beyond TPB matters. When the Court orders a concise statement in response and a respondent fails to file it, the allegations can be taken as admitted on a default judgment application [33]. That applies to any Federal Court litigation run on a concise statement.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.