A resolved issue is still a disclosable issue. That No was just the beginning.
A tax agent answered “No” when asked if anything might affect his good fame, integrity and character. A tribunal had already found he did not meet the good character test. That “No” was just the beginning.
Kumar and Tax Practitioners Board [2026] ARTA 232.
The facts
The TPB terminated Mr Kumar’s tax agent registration and imposed a five-year ban on reapplying.
When Mr Kumar renewed his registration on 16 May 2022, the application asked whether he had any matters in the previous five years that may affect his good fame, integrity and character. He answered “No.” The problem: in 2017, the former AAT had upheld a decision to deny his Australian citizenship application on the grounds that he did not satisfy the good character test, after he failed to disclose traffic offences committed in Fiji.
His explanation? He had since been granted citizenship, so he “regarded that the issue was no longer relevant.” The Board found a breach of s 30-10(1) for failing to act honestly and with integrity.
That was not all. As sole director of a motel company, he claimed JobKeeper payments the ATO found the company was not entitled to, attracting penalties for recklessness. When the ATO sought information, the Board found he provided false and/or misleading information and gave different and inconsistent explanations. That led to a finding of knowingly obstructing the proper administration of the taxation laws under s 30-10(11).
In total, the Board identified 69 alleged breaches, including failing to lodge returns and activity statements personally and through his companies, $207,452.69 in tax debts with no active payment arrangement, inadequate CPE records, and failing to respond to the Board’s correspondence including a formal s 60-100 TASA notice.
The decision
Mr Kumar applied to stay the termination. Senior Member Spender refused. The Tribunal found he had not provided sufficient material to form the opinion a stay was desirable [59]-[60]. On the Scott factors, prospects of success and the public interest each weighed “heavily” against the stay [70].
Practical takeaways
The renewal application is not a formality. The question asks about matters that “may affect” your character. A resolved issue is still a disclosable issue.
Obstruction is a different category. Providing inconsistent explanations to the ATO transforms a disputed entitlement into a finding under s 30-10(11).
Late remediation carries limited weight. Entering a payment plan shortly before the hearing, with the first payment not yet due, did not assist.
Volume matters. 69 breaches over four-plus years, remedied on average after 188 days, demonstrated either a disregard or inability to comply with the taxation laws. The Board takes honesty seriously. If there is something to disclose, disclose it.
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.