to ensure that tax agent services are provided to the public in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.[4]

2. This object is achieved through a system of registration of tax agents administered by the Board. In addition to relevant qualifications, experience, professional indemnity insurance and, for renewals, continuing professional education, for an individual to be eligible to be a registered tax agent the respondent must be satisfied that the individual is a 'fit and proper person'. Whether an individual is a fit and proper person requires the respondent to have regard to specified criteria, particularly 'whether the individual is of good fame, integrity and character'.[5]
3. The system of registration of tax agents is supported by a Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) as well as investigatory powers conferred upon the Board which enables it to apply disciplinary sanctions.
4. The Code is set out in subdivision 30-A of the TASA. The obligations under the Code include that a registered tax agent must:

(a) act honestly and with integrity;[6] > > (b) comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of your personal affairs.[7]

INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE, SANCTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

1. The TASA lays down a procedure for disciplinary actions, which include the power of the respondent to investigate any conduct of a tax agent that may breach the TASA.[8] On completion of an investigation, the Board must make a decision to take no further action or to impose one or more sanctions under the TASA, subdivision 30-B, for breach of the Code.[9]
2. The range of sanctions under subdivision 30-B of the TASA for failing to comply with the Code includes suspension or termination of the tax agent's registration. An individual tax agent's registration may be terminated under subdivision 40-A of the TASA if, amongst other events, the individual ceases to meet one of the tax practitioner registration requirements which, as stated above, includes that the tax agent is a 'fit and proper person'.
3. Where the Board terminates a tax agent's registration following an investigation, the Board may also determine a period of not more than five years in which the tax agent may not re-apply for registration.[10]
4. A decision to terminate a tax agent's registration is reviewable by the tribunal, as is a decision to impose a period during which the tax agent may not re-apply for registration.[11]

1. In its submissions dated 25 July 2025, the respondent set out the following factors underlying the Decision Under Review.[12] The following factors formed the basis of the findings that the Board made in the Decision Under Review on the balance of probabilities. Except where indicated below, the applicant did not dispute the summary of the relevant factors.
2. In the Decision Under Review, the respondent found that the applicant had breached the following provisions of the Code.

Subsection 30-10(1) - Failure to act honestly and with integrity

1. The respondent was satisfied that the applicant breached subsection 30-10(1) of the Code by failing to 'act honestly and with integrity' by making a false statement in his application for renewal of his tax agent registration lodged with the respondent on 16 May 2022, when he answered 'No' to the question regarding whether, in the previous 5 years, he had any matters that may affect his good fame, integrity and character, in circumstances where the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had on 29 June 2017 in Kumar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)[13] (Kumar and the Minister) upheld a decision of a delegate of the Minister for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to deny the applicant's application for Australian citizenship on the grounds that he did not satisfy the good character test.

Subsection 30-10(2) - Failing to comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of personal affairs

1. The respondent was satisfied that the applicant breached subsection 30-10(2) of the Code by failing to comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of his personal affairs, by, inter alia, failing to lodge 2 individual income tax returns (ITRs) and failing to lodge 8 activity statements and in his capacity as sole director of Tomel Motel Pty Ltd (Tomel Motel), causing the company to contravene the taxation laws when it claimed JobKeeper payments in circumstances where the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) found that it was not entitled to make those claims resulting in the imposition of penalties for recklessness.
2. The respondent was also satisfied that the applicant had breached this provision in his capacity as sole director of Kumar's Tax & Accounting Pty Ltd (KTA) by, inter alia, failing to pay penalties, failing to lodge ITRs and failing to lodge activity statements and, in his capacity as a director of Aus Indo-Fiji Pty Ltd, by failing to lodge to company ITRs and 7 activity statements.

Subsection 30-10(8) - Failing to maintain knowledge and skills relevant to the tax agent services that the applicant provides

1. The respondent was satisfied that the applicant breached subsection 30-10(8) of the Code in failing to maintain the knowledge and skills relevant to the services provided by:

(a) failing to keep a contemporaneous continuing professional education (CPE) log in line with the respondent's requirements; > > (b) failing to explain how he calculated the CPE hours he recorded in his CPE log; and > > (c) failing to explain how the CPE completed is relevant to the tax agent services he provided.

Subsection 30-10(11) - Knowingly obstructing the proper administration of the taxation laws

1. The respondent was satisfied that the applicant breached subsection 30-10(11) of the Code in knowingly obstructing the proper administration of taxation laws by:

(a) providing false and/or misleading information to the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) when asked to provide information and documents regarding JobKeeper claims he made; > > (b) failing to provide information to the Commissioner when requested; and > > (c) providing different/inconsistent explanations to the Commissioner during a review into JobKeeper claims.

Subsection 30-10(14) - Failing to respond to requests and directions from the Board in a timely, responsible and reasonable manner

1. The respondent was satisfied that the applicant breached subsection 30-10(14) of the Code by failing to respond to the following requests and directions from the respondent in a timely, responsible and reasonable manner:

(a) a preliminary enquiries letter issued by the respondent on 24 February 2023, with a response required by 10 March 2023; > > (b) a preliminary enquiries letter issued by the respondent on 2 July 2024, with a response initially required by 23 July 2024 and an extension subsequently granted (upon request by the applicant) to 6 August 2024; and > > (c) a section 60-100 TASA notice issued by the respondent on 16 September 2024, requesting all outstanding information and documents previously requested by the respondent, with a response required by 30 September 2024.

1. As regards the alleged breaches of the TASA, the respondent was satisfied that the applicant was not a fit and proper person as required by subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA, due to his conduct which breached subsections 30-10(1), 30-10(2), 30-10(8), 30-10(11) and 30-10(14) of the Code, as a result of the following matters:

(a) failing to disclose to the respondent a matter which may have impacted on his good fame, integrity and character; > > (b) failing to comply with his personal and related entities' taxation obligations; > > (c) failing to appropriately respond to multiple requests from the ATO for information and documents; > > (d) providing inconsistent responses when asked questions regarding the business conducted by a company of which he is the sole director; > > (e) failing to maintain adequate and appropriate CPE records; > > (f) failing to respond to the respondent's correspondence in a timely, responsible and reasonable manner; and > > (g) engaging in conduct that undermined the integrity of the tax system, and therefore he was not seen to be a person that the respondent, the Commissioner or the public could have confidence in to perform his functions as a registered tax agent competently and with integrity.

2. In its submissions dated 25 July 2025, the respondent set out 69 alleged 'failures' or breaches of the Code which in turn go to the question of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be registered under s 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.[14] Counsel for the Board provided detailed submissions which particularised and explained the evidentiary basis of the alleged failures and the findings on the first day of the hearing.[15]

THE HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. Pursuant to a timetable agreed to by the parties, the applicant filed submissions in support of his application on 4 July 2025. As stated above, the respondent filed its submissions on 25 July 2025. The applicant provided a reply by email on 4 August 2025 and provided further material by email on 22 August 2025.
2. A hearing was held before me on 12 August and 25 August 2025. The applicant was self-represented and the respondent was represented by Ms Ensor and Mr Long of counsel. The evidence consisted of the Tribunal documents filed by the respondent on 2 May 2025 and supplementary Tribunal documents filed 25 July 2025 and 8 August 2025. The material emailed to the tribunal by applicant on 22 August 2025 was included in the evidence as Exhibit A1.
3. I have referred to the evidence and submissions below.

THE PROCEDURAL LAW APPLYING TO THE STAY APPLICATION

1. The Tribunal's power to decide the application for a stay is derived from s 32 of the ART Act.
2. The Tribunal will proceed by setting out the elements of the express powers conferred by s 32 of the ART Act and thereafter consider the so-called Scott factors. The Scott factors were articulated in Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission[16] (Scott).

1. Section 32 of the ART Act states that the tribunal may make an order staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision if the tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the ART Act, s 32 is a continuation of the powers the tribunal exercised under s 41 of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) (Cth).[17]

1. In addition to the express powers conferred by section 32 of the ART Act, the Tribunal will consider the Scott factors which include, without limitation, the following:

(a) the prospects of success of the substantive application for review (the Review Application); > > (b) the consequences for the applicant of the refusal of a stay; > > (c) the public interest; > > (d) the consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not; and > > (e) whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted.[18]

1. In his submissions dated 4 July 2025, the applicant agreed that he had debts totalling $207,452.69 in relation to Tomel Motel and KTA and that at the time he did not have an active payment arrangement/plan with the ATO for those debts. He also agreed that there were two outstanding activity statements for himself and the entities he controlled (that is Tomel Motel and KTA) dated 30 June 2024 and 30 September 2024. He referred to the Board's findings that the evidence that was provided of continuing professional education was outside the alleged breach period. He mentioned that the Board was advised that he was seeking medical treatment and would be looking to downsize his client base to focus on his health.
2. As stated above, the applicant admitted that he had outstanding activity statements and 'as a tax agent or an ordinary taxpayer, I should have fulfilled my obligations in a timely manner.'[19]
3. Nevertheless, the applicant contended that the Board had been extremely harsh in terminating his registration as a tax agent for a period of five years.
4. The applicant referred to various AAT authorities, for example Proh v Tax Agents' Board of Victoria,[20] where McDonald DP stated that the purpose of cancellation or suspension of a tax agent's registration is not to punish the person concerned but to protect taxpayers from agents who are not conforming to the legislative requirement attaching to their registration as agents.[21]
5. The applicant also noted that the debt to KTA had been remitted by the ATO and there was currently nothing owing by that company. The applicant contended that the Board, by terminating his registration for five years, was inconsiderate in expecting him to pay any tax due in a timely manner:

If I do not have a job, I will have to find another suitable job first then start paying off any tax due. To find a suitable job in a regional city is not an easy task.

I think the TPB has just punished me as a tax agent, rather than assisting me as [its] member, to meet my tax obligations.[22]

1. In particular, the applicant referred to two cases decided by the AAT, McCarthy and Tax Practitioners Board[23] (McCarthy) and Tomkinson and Tax Practitioners Board[24] (Tomkinson) where the tribunal had either reduced the period of termination of registration (from four years to two years in McCarthy) or had affirmed a decision about a shorter period of termination of 18 months in Tomkinson. The applicant argued that the misconduct involved in McCarthy and Tomkinson was more serious than in the present proceedings. Further, in both cases the tribunal had ordered a stay of the TPB decision.[25] The applicant argued that the present Tribunal should be guided by these other tribunal decisions.[26]
2. In his reply dated 4 August 2025, the applicant referred to an allegation of dishonesty which was made by the respondent in its submissions filed 25 July 2025. This allegation was withdrawn by the respondent during the hearing held on 25 August 2025.
3. During the hearing on 25 August 2025 the applicant made further submissions about the findings of the TPB. Regarding the Kumar and the Minister decision where he had failed to disclose some traffic offences committed in Fiji and was found by the AAT to not be of good character, he argued that this case was not disclosed by him in in his application for reregistration as a tax agent because he had been granted Australian citizenship at the time that he applied for reregistration and so he regarded that the issue was no longer relevant.[27]
4. He acknowledged that he had not responded in a timely way to requests that had been made to him and apologised for that.[28] He also acknowledged that he was not aware of the issue about the JobKeeper payments but he was not reckless because he believed that the ATO had told him in 2020 that he was eligible for this payment.[29]
5. Further, he stated during the hearing that he had broadened his mindset on the matter of JobKeeper[30] and had called the ATO to enter into a payment plan. The payment plan was due to commence on 2 September 2025 and involved the payment of $7000 per month.[31] The applicant's comments were supported by a letter sent by email on 22 August 2025 which is referred to in the hearing as 'Enclosure 2'. Enclosure 2 was a letter from the ATO dated 19 August 2025 titled 'Critical Response 003', which set out a payment plan of $7000 per month from 2 September 2025 to 2 May 2028.[32] The applicant contended that the termination of his registration as a tax agent needed to be stayed to enable him to find work in order to service this debt. He also contended that he was not reckless by applying for the JobKeeper payment.
6. Regarding the consequences for the applicant of the stay not being granted, the applicant said that he had poor prospects of employment as a 'disqualified' accountant'[33] and the Tribunal should take this into account.

1. In addressing the first discretionary factor in Scott - prospects of success - the respondent relied upon Re Oaklands and Australian Securities and Investments Commission_[34]_ (Oaklands) that the Tribunal must consider whether there are facts and circumstances which, if established at the substantive hearing, would provide a basis for success.[35] Further, the respondent cited Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission_[36]_ (Poidevin) noting that the applicant had not advanced any argument or evidence capable of contesting the findings made by the respondent. This, said the respondent, is a significant factor weighing against the granting of a stay.
2. The respondent argued that the prospects of success would not justify a stay in the present case because the Tribunal would need to be satisfied that the result would be something other than termination - a mere reduction in the length of time of the termination would be insufficient.[37]
3. Regarding the authorities relied upon by the applicant, the respondent said that even if the Tribunal was to engage in a comparative exercise with past decisions (which the respondent cautioned against) it would not assist the applicant because the breaches in the present case are in a conceptually different category.[38] For example there are breaches that relate to knowingly making JobKeeper claims for which the company controlled by the applicant was ineligible. There was obstruction of the proper administration of taxation laws by a failure to cooperate with the ATO. Even looking at those two matters alone and putting the other conduct to one side these are extremely serious matters for a registered tax agent to be involved in.[39] The respondent contended that McCarthy and Tomkinson did not involve conduct anywhere near as serious as knowingly obstructing the proper administration of taxation laws or knowingly making claims for payment of monies from the ATO for which the recipient was ineligible.[40]
4. Apart from demonstrating the requisite standard of prospects of success, there is a further question about the weight to be attached to prospects of success as a factor in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion when deciding whether or not to grant a stay. The weight to be attached to that factor can depend on the strength or weakness of the applicant's case in a particular factual matrix under consideration. The respondent relied upon Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board[41] where McCabe DP recognised that an obviously weak case will weigh against a stay.[42]
5. The respondent argued that the entry into the payment plan with the ATO at this late stage does not assist the applicant on the stay application because there is no evidence provided at the time of the hearing of compliance with the payment plan to date.[43] The other types of conduct that underpinned the proceedings are many and varied and include late lodgements for both the applicant and the entities which he controls and the respondent submitted that the Tribunal should have regard to this tardiness despite the fact that the breaches had largely been remedied. The time period within which the breaches were remedied was an average of 188 days.[44] Further, said the respondent, there were other categories of failures, for example, the failure in respect of the continuing professional education requirement and the failure to provide a timely and appropriate response to the Board.[45]
6. Overall, the respondent submitted that there was a broad range of conduct which relates to multiple subsections of the Code and this conduct goes to the very core of a registered tax agent's responsibilities and which shows either a disregard or inability to comply with the taxation laws.[46]
7. In terms of the applicant's personal tax affairs and the Tomel Motel claims, the respondent relied upon GJ Brown & Co Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board[47] to argue that the AAT regularly accepted that the failure of an agent to attend to their personal tax affairs demonstrates a lack of suitability, rendering the agent unfit to handle the affairs of others who may seek to utilise their services.[48]
8. Further, argued the respondent, there was a lack of candour in respect of the traffic offences committed in Fiji and the Tribunal should have regard to the overall framework of tax policy in Australia that a registered tax agent is expected to have dealings with the ATO on behalf of their clients and that is part of the trusted relationship between the ATO and registered tax agents.[49] It is imperative that the ATO can accept the honesty and candour of a registered tax agent which is a critical component that underpins Australia's self-assessment system of taxation.[50] Matters that go to honesty and candour weigh heavily against continued registration and the respondent submitted that the Tribunal should bear this in mind when considering whether the applicant has demonstrated prospects of achieving a result other than termination at final hearing.[51] Given the number and repetition of the breaches, their serious nature and the fact that they occurred over a period exceeding four years, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the applicant has prospects of a result other than termination at a final hearing.[52]
9. Regarding the second Scott factor - the consequences for the applicant should the stay be refused - the respondent said it must be remembered at the outset that a member of a regulated profession accepts the regulator's lawful regulation upon entry into the profession and there can be no surprise that breaches of the Code could lead to termination. That of course may affect the registered tax agent's ability to earn an income from being a registered tax agent. In the current case, the applicant can continue to earn an income from any source if a stay is not granted because he could be employed by another registered tax agent and earn income from that employment provided that the prospective employer applied to the respondent in advance pursuant to section 45-5 of the TASA to employ the applicant. So, argued the respondent, there is no prohibition on him obtaining employment in the industry.[53] Although the applicant had made some submissions that he would not be able to be employed because nobody would employ him, there is no evidence before the Tribunal on which that submission was based.[54]
10. The respondent accepted that there may be consequences for the applicant if the stay is not granted but said that when one recognises the role of a regulator and the applicant's voluntary participation in the regulated profession, and considering the other factors to which the Tribunal may have regard (in particular the public interest), those factors outweigh any consequences for the applicant should the stay be refused. Accordingly, little weight should be placed on this factor.[55]
11. Regarding the third Scott factor - the public interest - the respondent argued that the public is entitled to the protection offered by the Decision Under Review and that the whole of the scheme of the TASA is directed to the public interest in supporting trust and confidence in tax agents. Considering that the applicant had not furnished any evidence or argument capable of contesting the factual findings concerning serious breaches of the Code that underpinned the Decision Under Review, the respondent submitted that the public interest weighs against the stay being granted.[56]
12. Regarding the fourth Scott factor - the consequences for the respondent - the respondent argued that a stay might undermine the Board's ability to discharge its statutory duties under TASA. Therefore, the respondent's reputation and function as a regulatory body should weigh significantly against granting a stay in these proceedings.[57]
13. As to the factor of whether the Review Application would be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted, the respondent argued that the applicant had not provided evidence capable of demonstrating that a refusal of the stay would render the application for review nugatory. Relying upon Boyle DP in Cross and Tax Practitioners Board[58] (Cross), the respondent noted that although the applicant might suffer financial loss, the Review Application would be not rendered nugatory because presumably the applicant would want to go to hearing of the substantive application to clear his name. This issue must be considered in the context that the applicant will still face a five-year period before he can apply to be registered again.[59]

1. I agree with the statement made by the tribunal in XTrade.AU Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission[60] (XTrade) that the decision to order a stay is 'exceptional, in the sense the Tribunal must be satisfied it is appropriate to make an exception to the usual state of affairs'.[61]
2. I will first consider whether the applicant has met the 'effectiveness threshold' in s 32 of the ART Act, that is, whether the applicant has provided sufficient material to enable me to form the opinion that it is desirable to make an order for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review. The next section will examine the evidence that was led by the applicant in support of his application under s 32 of the ART Act in more detail.
3. I consider that it is necessary for me to be satisfied that there is sufficient material which could form the basis from which I could reach the requisite desirability opinion under

s 32 of the ART Act. In Birdseye v Tax Practitioners Board[62] (Birdseye FCA), Logan J stated this requirement in the following terms:

It ... is neither necessary, nor desirable, to set metes and bounds as to what may engender appropriately the requisite desirability opinion other than to observe that, as with any administrative decision, there must be some material before the Tribunal which is reasonably capable of engendering the requisite opinion.[63]

1. In conformity with the views expressed by Logan J, I must be satisfied that the evidence presented by the applicant is reasonably capable of engendering the opinion that it is desirable to make a stay order to ensure the effectiveness of the review. In White and Tax Practitioners Board[64] (White), Olding SM noted there was insufficient evidence that had been led in the application for him to form the requisite desirability opinion, not even an indication of the extent of any adverse impact on the applicants.[65] In the present case, the applicant has made assertions about the adverse impact of the Decision Under Review upon him, without providing substantiating evidence. This will be considered below when considering the Scott factors. Importantly, however, in Birdseye AAT, Olding SM found that because the applicants in that case had not disputed key findings of the Board, that may weigh against the granting of a stay.
2. Regarding the connection between s 32 and the Scott factors, Logan J in Birdseye FCA reviewed the AAT decision made by Olding SM under s 41 of the AAT Act in Birdseye AAT and commented that Olding SM had made reference to the Scott factors but 'that was against the backdrop of appreciating that his task was set out in the statute'.[66] Logan J found that there was no error in this approach.[67]

Does the evidence support the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review?

1. As stated above, pursuant to s 32 of the ART Act, I am obliged to consider whether sufficient material has been provided for me to form an opinion that a stay is desirable to achieve the effectiveness of the review. In the written submissions and during the hearing, the applicant made certain admissions which are detailed above and general assertions about the effect upon him if a stay is not granted. I have taken into account the interests of the applicant's family who may be affected by the review of the decision under s 32(7)(b) of the ART Act. I accept that refusal of the stay order will have consequences for the applicant which are considered in more detail below. However, I am not satisfied that sufficient material has been provided by the applicant for me to form the opinion that a stay is desirable to achieve the effectiveness of the review.
2. Therefore, I conclude that, applying s 32 of the ART Act, the request for stay should be refused.
3. However, to supplement my conclusion on the exercise of the power under s 32 of the ART Act, I will now consider the discretionary Scott factors.

DISCRETIONARY FACTORS THAT WEIGH IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST A STAY

1. The respondent relied on the test adopted by the tribunal in Oaklands. This is similar to the formulation in Poidevin as follows:

'The Tribunal is, however, at least obliged to determine whether there are facts or circumstances or points of law that may be argued at a substantive hearing which may lead to a different result.' [68]

1. I note the approach adopted by McCabe DP and Benk SM in XTrade, and accept it is not appropriate to conduct a mini-trial for the purpose of assessing the merits of the Review Application and my consideration is 'necessarily impressionistic'.[69] It is not clear to me that the arguments raised by the applicant, upon initial impression, amount to circumstances or facts or points of law that may be argued at the substantive hearing which may lead to a different result on the Poidevin test. I accept that the applicant has provided an explanation for not disclosing the findings of the AAT in 2017 in Kumar and the Minister when he applied for renewal of his tax agent's registration in 2022, but this explanation needs to be read in the context of the multiple failures that underpinned the findings of the Board leading to the Decision Under Review.
2. Relying on the observations of Olding SM in Birdseye AAT, I consider that the applicant has not established an evidentiary foundation upon which I could be satisfied that he has a reasonably arguable case for having the termination set aside altogether. This is due in part to the serious allegations that have been explained at length by the respondent but also by the recognition that the applicant has not significantly disputed the key findings of the Board. The prospects of success weigh heavily against the relief sought.

The consequences for the applicant if the stay is refused

1. Regarding the consequences for the applicant of the refusal of a stay, I recognise that the termination is likely to have deleterious effects. However I agree with the respondent's submission that this effect is the case for any person operating a small business faced with the prospect of losing their registration and is the price paid for the privilege of participating in a regulated occupation.[70]
2. The applicant asserted that he would be unable to secure employment but did not lead any evidence in support of this assertion. Nevertheless, the respondent acknowledged that the applicant may experience consequences should the stay applications be refused.[71] I conclude that the effect of the consequences for the applicant if the stay is refused weighs slightly in favour of the relief being granted.

1. I agree with the respondent that trust is a critical component of the regime of self-assessment under Australia's tax system. The Board's findings about the applicant's conduct are serious and demonstrate failures to appropriately respond to the ATO and the Board. As stated above, these findings have not been substantially challenged by the applicant. There is a significant public interest in protecting the public as potential consumers of tax services by the applicant and in safeguarding the dealings between tax agents, the ATO and the Board. This factor weighs heavily against the granting of a stay.

1. As stated above, the respondent argued that a stay might undermine the Board's ability to discharge its statutory duties under the TASA. Therefore, the respondent's reputation and function as a regulatory body should weigh significantly against granting a stay in these proceedings.[72] In carrying out its functions, clearly the Board must be seen to be performing its role and the public is entitled to know about the decisions that have been made by the regulator.[73] There is no evidence that there is likely to be further delay in this matter proceeding to a substantive hearing and therefore it is unlikely that the Board's function as a regulator will be adversely affected within this relatively short period of time. This factor is neutral.

1. Regarding the question of whether the application for review will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted, I agree with the respondent's submissions, citing Cross, that the Review Application will not be rendered nugatory because the applicant would presumably want to go to a hearing of the Review Application to attempt to clear his name. This factor is neutral.

(a) the prospects of success weighs heavily against a stay being granted; > > (b) the effect of the consequences for the applicant if the stay is granted weigh slightly in favour of the relief being granted, although this is based on inferences made by the Tribunal and the assertions made by the applicant without the support of substantiating evidence; > > (c) the consideration of the public interest weighs heavily against the stay application being granted; > > (d) the consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions is neutral; and > > (e) the consideration of whether the Review Application will be rendered nugatory is neutral.

2. Having considered all the factors relevant to the exercise of my discretion, I am satisfied that the request for a stay order should be refused.

1. Upon not being satisfied that it is desirable to stay the operation or implementation of the Decision Under Review to ensure the effectiveness of the review, and after consideration of the relevant factors in the exercise of my discretion, the Tribunal refuses the applicant's request for a stay order.

[1] In this decision, a reference to 'Tribunal documents' is a reference to the Tribunal documents filed by the respondent on 2 May 2025, 25 July 2025, and 8 August 2025. 'Applicant's submissions' refers to the applicant's submissions dated 4 July 2025, in reply on 4 August 2025 and by email on 22 August 2025. 'Respondent's submissions' refers to the respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025. The written submissions were supplemented by oral argument during the hearing.

[3] [2020] AATA 1250.

[11] TASA, s 70-10(e) and (h) respectively.

[12] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [8]-[20].

[13] [2017] AATA 997.

[14] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, Annexure A.

[15] See generally transcript 12 August 2025, pages 14 -41.

[16] [2009] AATA 798 at [4].

[17] The Revised Explanatory Memorandum for the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 (Cth) at [362], states the following: 'This clause is equivalent to section 41 of the AAT Act. It has minor updates to reflect modern drafting practices. These do not affect the operation or effect of the provision'.

[19] Applicant's submissions dated 4 July 2025, page 1.

[20] [2010] AATA 149.

[21] [2010] AATA 149 at [15].

[22] Applicant's submissions dated 4 July 2025, page 2.

[23] [2021] AATA 641.

[24] [2021] AATA 2172.

[25] McCarthy at [15], Tomkinson at [4] - [5].

[26] Applicant's submissions 4 July 2025, page 4.

[27] Transcript 25 August 2025, pages 6 - 8.

[28] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 8.

[29] Transcript 25 August 2025, pages 9, 19.

[30] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 6.

[31] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 16.

[33] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 66.

[34] [2011] AATA 199.

[36] [2018] AATA 124 at [40].

[37] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 53.

[38] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 54.

[39] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 54.

[40] Transcript 25 August 2025, pages 53 - 55.

[41] [2020] AATA 890.

[42] [2020] AATA 890 at [13].

[43] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 48.

[44] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 48.

[45] Transcript 25 August 2025, pages 48 - 49.

[46] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 49.

[47] [2016] AATA 740.

[48] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 49.

[49] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 50.

[50] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 50.

[51] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 50.

[52] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 50.

[53] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 56.

[54] Transcript 25 August 2025, page 56.

[55] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [66].

[56] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [67] - [77].

[57] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [78] - [80].

[58] [2020] AATA 1471.

[59] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [81] - [84].

[60] [2024] AATA 1372.

[62] [2020] FCA 1235.

[64] [2025] ARTA 603 at [10], [17].

[70] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [64] citing Iseppi and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 1523 at [24].

[71] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [64].

[72] Respondent's submissions dated 25 July 2025, [78] - [80].