(a) under subsection 30-15(2)(a) of the TASA, the Board issue Mr Grindal with a written caution; and

(b) under subsections 30-15(2)(b) and 30-20(1)(b) of the TASA, Mr Grindal provide tax agent services for which he is registered only under the supervision of a registered tax agent whose identity is approved by the Board, on such conditions as to reporting as the Board shall impose, for a period of 12 months from the date of this Decision.

2. In respect of Protego Consulting Pty Ltd (Protego) (application 2024/8576), the Tribunal sets aside the Board's decisions under subsections 40-15(1)(b) and 40-25(1) of the TASA and in substitution decides that Protego's registration be suspended until such time as Mr Grindal resigns as director and an alternate director (being a fit and proper person) is appointed to Protego, and such alternate director shall remain in office for the duration of the period for which Mr Grindal is registered only under the supervision of a registered tax agent, as provided for in paragraph 1(b) above. Upon the successful completion of his 12-month period under the supervision of a registered tax agent, Mr Grindal may be re-appointed as a director of Protego.

........................[SGD]................................................

TAX AGENTS - Tax Practitioners Board - registration as a tax agent - review of decision to cancel registration of a tax agent - requirements for registration - compliance with the Code of Conduct - fit and proper person requirement - whether circumstances warrant termination - protective purpose of sanctions - extent to which rehabilitation of agent had occurred - written caution - supervision order - decision under review varied to substitute the sanctions ordered

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 54, 105

Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) ss 2-5, 20-1, 20-5, 20-15, 20-A, 30-1, 30-5, 30-10, 30-15, 30-30, 30-35, 30-A, 30-B, 40-1, 40-5, 40-15, 40-25, 40-A, Division 40, 60-95, 60-125, 60-E, 70-10, 90, 90-1

Borella and Tax Practitioners Board [2023] AATA 3748

Carter and Tax Practitioners Board [2017] AATA 528

Ham and Tax Practitioners Board [2017] AATA 1642

Kishore and Tax Practitioners Board [2017] AATA 271

Lecky and Tax Practitioners Board [2025] ARTA 119

Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 890

Li and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 299

Ridden and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 422

Stasos v Tax Agents' Board [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974

1. The Applicants, Christopher Grindal (Mr Grindal) and Protego Consulting Pty Ltd (Protego), seek review[1] under subsections 70-10(e) and 70-10(h) of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (TASA) of two decisions of the Respondent (the Board) dated 12 September 2024. The decisions were notified by letter from the Board to Mr Grindal dated 27 September 2024[2] and letter from the Board to Protego dated 26 September 2024.[3]
2. The Board's first decision[4] concerned Mr Grindal (Grindal Decision) and was comprised of the following elements:

(a) Mr Grindal had breached subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) in section 30 of the TASA.

(b) Mr Grindal had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement that he be a fit and proper person under subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.

(c) Mr Grindal's registration as a tax practitioner would be terminated under subsection 40-5(1)(b) of the TASA. And;

(d) Mr Grindal was prohibited from applying for registration for a period of two years under subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA.

1. The Board's second decision[5] concerned Protego (Protego Decision) and was comprised of the following elements:

(a) Protego had ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement that its directors be fit and proper persons under subsection 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.

(b) Protego's registration as a tax practitioner would be terminated under subsection 40-15(1) of the TASA. And;

(c) Protego was prohibited from applying for registration for a period of two years under subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA.

Collectively, the Grindal Decision and the Protego Decision are referred to as the Reviewable Decisions.

1. The Reviewable Decisions were to take effect on 25 October 2024. On 5 November 2024, the Tribunal stayed the Reviewable Decisions until the hearing and determination of the applications for review. Accordingly, Mr Grindal has remained registered as a tax agent (operating through Protego) and Protego's registration has similarly continued.
2. Mr Grindal is the sole director and principal of Protego, which was automatically registered under the TASA upon its commencement in 2010. Mr Grindal does not provide client services other than through his role as supervising agent and the sole practitioner of Protego.
3. The Board's position is that if the Grindal Decision is upheld by the Tribunal and a finding is made that Mr Grindal is not a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent, then the Protego Decision will necessarily also be affirmed. That follows by reason of the operation of subsection 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA which requires that each director of a company which is registered as a tax agent must be a fit and proper person.[6]
4. A paginated Joint Tribunal Hearing Book (THB) was prepared for the hearing of the applications, from which page references reference will be made in these Reasons as appropriate.
5. The Applicants read and relied upon the affidavit of Mr Grindal dated 24 June 2025 (Grindal Affidavit).[7] Mr Grindal was called as a witness and cross examined by counsel for the Board.
6. The Applicants also relied on their Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 17 February 2025 (Applicants' SFIC),[8] their Amended Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 18 August 2025 (Applicants' Amended SFIC)[9] and their Written submissions dated 14 September 2025 (Applicants' Submissions).
7. The Board read and relied upon the following witness statements:

(a) Witness statement of Stephen Arthur Fate (Mr Fate) dated 5 August 2025 and its annexures (Fate Statement).[10]

(b) Witness statement of Carmen Maranta Ward (Ms Ward) dated 5 August 2025 and its annexures (Second Ward Statement). The annexures to the Second Ward Statement included an earlier witness statement of Ms Ward dated 10 April 2024 and its annexures (First Ward Statement).[11] And;

(c) Witness statement of Shae Henry (Ms Henry) dated 10 July 2024 and its attachments (Henry Statement).[12]

Mr Fate, Ms Ward and Ms Henry were called as witnesses by the Board and were cross examined by Mr Ferguson, the solicitor for the Applicants.

1. The Board also relied on its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 January 2025 (Respondent's SFIC),[13] its Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 18 August 2025 (Respondent's Amended SFIC)[14] and its Written Submissions dated 12 September 2025 (Respondent's Submissions). The Tribunal also notes that on 28 February 2025, the Respondent filed a Statement in Reply to the Applicants' SFIC (Respondent's Reply)[15].
2. At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to file and serve short written Closing Submissions which step was completed by the parties on 15 October 2025. The respective written Closing Submissions of the parties are referred to as the Applicants Closing Submissions and the Board's Closing Submissions.

1. The issues for determination by the Tribunal[16] are as follows:

(i) Mr Grindal engaged in conduct that breached subsection 30-10(1) of the Code of Professional Conduct (Code) in the TASA.

(ii) Mr Grindal engaged in conduct that breached subsection 30-10(2) of the Code in the TASA.

(iii) Mr Grindal has ceased to meet the taxation practitioner registration requirement that he is a fit and proper person as required under subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.

(iv) termination of Mr Grindal's tax agent registration under paragraph 40-5(1)(b) of the TASA is appropriate. And;

(v) whether the determination that Mr Grindal may not apply for registration under the TASA for a period of two years under subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA is appropriate.

(i) Protego has ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement that each director, namely Mr Grindal, be a fit and proper person as required under subsection 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.

(ii) Termination of Protego's tax agent registration under subsection 40-15(1)(b) of the TASA is appropriate. And;

(iii) the determination that Protego may not apply for registration under the TASA for a period of two years under subsection 40-25(1) of the TASA is appropriate.

1. The TASA contains the regulatory regime for tax agents such as Mr Grindal and Protego. The object of the TASA is contained in section 2-5, which provides:

(1) The object of the Act is to support public trust and confidence in the integrity of the tax profession and of the tax system by ensuring that tax agent services are provided to the community in accordance with appropriate standards of professional and ethical conduct.

(2) This is to be achieved by (among other things) providing for:

(a) the registration and regulation, by a national Board, of entities that provide tax agent services; and

(b) a Code of Professional Conduct for registered tax agents and BAS agents; and

(c) sanctions to discipline entities in relation to their conduct as a registered tax agent or BAS agent; and

(d) sanctions where tax agent services are provided otherwise than in accordance with this Act.

1. In addition to having the relevant qualifications, experience and professional indemnity cover, and fulfilling annual continuing legal education requirements, Mr Grindal must satisfy the Board that he is a "fit and proper person" before he can be registered as a tax agent. In deciding whether it is satisfied, the Board must have regard to criteria, including "whether the individual is of good fame, integrity and character."[17]
2. The Code is contained in section 30-10 of the TASA. For the purposes of the Reviewable Decisions, Board relies on sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Code, which provide as follows:

(2) You must comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of your personal affairs...

1. "Personal affairs" is not a defined term in the TASA. An issue arose in the case about what the Board considered, at the relevant time (2016 - 2018), to be included in the registered agent's "personal affairs". The Applicants contend that in December 2018, in circumstances where: "the Board itself had not yet settled or updated its own view that a practitioner's obligations to comply with taxation laws in his personal affairs in fact extended to the tax affairs of other entities, then it would be unreasonable to apply that interpretation to a practitioner in respect of his conduct before that date."[18]
2. The "fit and proper person" eligibility requirement is set out in subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA, which provides:

(1) An individual, aged 18 years or more, is eligible for registration as a registered tax agent or BAS agent if the Board is satisfied that:

1. The eligibility requirements for a company such as Protego are set out in subsection 25(3) of the TASA, which provides at subsection 25(3)(a):

(3) A company is eligible for registration as a *registered tax agent or BAS agent if the Board is satisfied that:

(a) each director of the company is a fit and proper person.

1. Termination of a taxation agent by the Board can occur under Part 3 of the TASA, as one of the available sanctions available under subsection 30-15(2) of the TASA for failure to comply with the Code, or under Part 4 of the TASA, for failing to meet a registration requirement. The Reviewable Decisions involved the termination of Mr Grindal and Protego as tax agents under Part 4 of the TASA.
2. In the case of Mr Grindal, subsection 40-5(1) of the TASA provides that the Board may terminate the registration of an individual as a registered tax agent if he or she ceases to meet one of the tax practitioner registration requirements set out in subsection 20-5(1) of the TASA (including that the individual is a fit and proper person: subsection 20-5(1)(a)).
3. In the case of Protego, subsection 40-15(1) of the TASA provides that the Board may terminate the registration of a company as a registered tax agent if it ceases to meet one of the tax practitioner registration requirements set out in subsection 20-5(3) of the TASA (including that each director of the company is a fit and proper person: subsection 20-5(3)(a)).
4. While Part 4 of the TASA involves termination because the events or conduct in question go to the very heart of a tax agent's eligibility for registration, Part 3 of the TASA allows for a range of administrative sanctions to be imposed by the Board for breaches of the Code.
5. The relevant administrative sanction sections of the TASA are set out in Subdivision 30-B, and include the following provisions:

30-15 Sanctions for failure to comply with the Code of Professional Conduct

(1) This Subdivision applies if the Board is satisfied, after conducting an investigation under Subdivision 60-E, that you have failed to comply with the *Code of Professional Conduct.

(2) The Board may do one or more of the following:

(c) suspend your registration under section 30-25;

(d) terminate your registration under section 30-30.

(1) The Board may make an order that requires you take one or more actions including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) completing a course of education or training specified in the order;

(b) providing *tax agent services for which you are registered only under the supervision of a *registered tax agent or BAS agent specified in the order;

(c) providing only those tax agent services that are specified in the order;

(d) requiring you to notify, in writing, all of your current clients about the findings of the Board's investigation specified in the order.

1. Where, as in this case, there has been an investigation of a tax agent's conduct under Subdivision 60-E of the TASA, and the conduct under investigation is found to have breached the TASA, the relevant possible outcomes of the investigation are provided for as follows:

... Investigation relating to whether conduct breaches this Act

(2) If the Board investigates conduct under section 60-95 and finds that the conduct breaches this Act, the Board must either:

(a) make a decision that no further action will be taken;

(i) impose one or more sanctions under Subdision 30-B;

(ii) terminate an entity's registration under Subdivision 40-A...

1. In the period from 2015 to 2018, Mr Grindal went through a period of considerable personal and financial stress. Mr Grindal's wife experienced severe health issues and passed away in 2015, leaving Mr Grindal as the carer of 2 young children.[19] Mr Grindal had health issues of his own, being diagnosed with cancer in January 2015 for which he underwent extensive chemotherapy treatment.[20]
2. In the period from early 2016, Mr Grindal sought to purchase an accounting practice, forming Argus Accounting Pty Ltd (Argus Accounting) as the purchasing vehicle.[21] In addition, Mr Grindal became a director of two related companies, Argus Private Pty Ltd (Argus Private) and Argus Administration Pty Ltd (Argus Administration), which companies are collectively referred to as the Argus companies.
3. The acquisition of the accounting practice was beset with difficulties, culminating in the loss by Mr Grindal of his house. Mr Grindal decided in about November 2018 to move from Cairns to Brisbane with his children.[22]
4. Mr Grindal states that he resigned as a director of the Argus companies in late November 2018 prior to taking up a position with a Brisbane accounting firm, commencing in January 2019. Mr Grindal's position is that from 30 November 2018, he ceased to have any further role in the Argus companies and that the contact points and responsibilities for the Argus companies passed to his father and others.[23] The Tribunal notes that the Board does not accept on the evidence that Mr Grindal did in fact cease to be a director of the Argus companies on 30 November 2018.[24]
5. The parties were in agreement as to many of the facts in the proceedings. The Applicants, in paragraph [9] of the Applicants' SFIC, accepted the Board's recital of the facts which are set out in paragraphs [2] - [8], [11] - [18], [20] - [42], [44] - [64], [69] and [80] - [89] of the Respondent's SFIC. The subject matter of these agreed facts concerned:

(a) Mr Grindal's disputes with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) relating to the Argus companies.

(b) The false declarations made by Mr Grindal to the Board on various dates in the period 2016 to 2018 on behalf of Argus Private or Argus Accounting as to whether the company or any of the directors of the company had any overdue tax obligations.

(c) The previous sanction (including a 6-month suspension of his tax agent registration) imposed upon Mr Grindal by the Board on 17 February 2022. And;

(d) the chronology of events in the period from 23 September 2023 until 27 September 2024, including the Board's investigation commenced on 19 March 2024 under Subdivision 60-E of the TASA and the making and notification to the Applicants of the Reviewable Decision.

1. The matters which are set out at paragraphs [70] - [79] of the Respondent's SFIC are disputed by the Applicants. The disputed matters concern:

(a) The complaint made to the Board by Ms Ward in March 2023 about Mr Grindal having underpaid her wages and superannuation entitlement and his having lodged an application (under the Back to Work Program (BTW Program)) with the Queensland Department of Employment, Small Business and Training (DESBT) in relation to her employment when he was not eligible for that funding.

(b) The BTW Program application (with supporting documentation), made in support of a final payment of $6000, was submitted by Argus Administration and was based on the assertion that Ms Ward had completed 52 weeks of continuous employment with Argus Administration.

(c) The review conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 by Mr Fate, a compliance officer at the DESBT, of the BTW Program application and the findings of that investigation that Mr Grindal had:

(i) underpaid Ms Ward (ordinary wages of up to $10,584 and superannuation of up to $7,303);

(ii) supplied false and misleading information in the BTW Program application to claim funding to which he may not have been entitled.

(d) Statements given in evidence by Ms Henry, also formerly employed by Argus Administration, about her treatment as an employee by Mr Grindal, including the non-payment to her of superannuation.

1. The Fate Statement, the First and Second Ward Statements and the Henry Statement sought to give evidence in respect of these disputed matters and each of these witnesses were cross examined at the hearing. Some further observations about their respective evidence are set out below.

1. The key points which emerged from Mr Grindal's evidence in chief were:

(a) Mr Grindal's wife passed away in 2016 after a long period of illness and Mr Grindal himself underwent treatment for lymphoma in the period from 2016 - 2018.[25]

(b) The declarations made by Mr Grindal in relation to the registration of Argus Accounting and Argus Private as to the Argus entities not having any tax liabilities were false.[26]

(c) Mr Grindal resigned his directorships in the Argus companies at the end of November 2018.[27]

(d) The declarations made by Mr Grindal in the period 2016 - 2018 in relation to the BAS for the Argus companies were incorrect. Lodging activity statements which claimed input tax credits which were ultimately disallowed by the ATO was wrong. Looking back at the conduct in 2016 - 2018 which the Board complains of it was wrongful conduct and Mr Grindal regrets that the conduct occurred.[28] And;

(e) Mr Grindal concedes that his conduct in not paying his employees their superannuation and other entitlements was incorrect.[29]

1. Several factual issues were explored in Mr Grindal's cross examination. These included Mr Grindal's resignation as a director of the Argus companies on about 30 November 2018 and the appointment of Mr Grindal's father as the replacement director for the Argus companies from that date and the apparent lack of remorse and contrition for his admitted conduct in his written responses to the Board in 2023 and 2024 (including the absence of references to his medical conditions and his general attempts to deflect wrongdoing from himself in those earlier responses).
2. The key exchange concerning Mr Grindal's resignation from the Argus companies on 30 November 2018 is as follows:

Counsel: So at the time you assertedly resigned on 30 November, you were aware of an ATO investigation?

Mr Grindal: I'm saying there's an engagement with the ATO, I'm not...remembering whether it was an investigation enquiry, but it would have been an inquiry at the very least. I don't recall the super audit or anything at that time.

Counsel: I put it to you that this resignation was by design to avoid dealing with any questions about the company?

Mr Grindal: You can put that to me, but that's incorrect. I had another job to go to."[30]

1. A further exchange occurred in relation to Mr Grindal's father's appointment as director:

Counsel: "Your father was appointed director from 30 November, wasn't he?

Counsel: It would have been an easy matter for you to enquire with your father as to what those outcomes [of audits or objections] were?

Mr Grindal: It would have been an easy [matter] if I had made those enquiries of him, which I didn't, because he didn't communicate anything with me about it.[31]

1. The submission which the Board sought to support was that Mr Grindal had deliberately removed himself as a director to avoid having to deal with ATO enquiries in relation to the Argus companies. The resignation was said to be a deliberate ploy to avoid ATO scrutiny of the Argus companies, or at least imprudent conduct on the part of Mr Grindal given he was a registered tax agent and aware that the ATO was enquiring into the activities of the Argus companies.[32]
2. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Grindal's conduct in respect of the Argus companies after 30 November 2018 lacked the care which might be expected of a registered tax agent in dealing with companies of which he had been a director. However, the conduct must also be viewed in the context of Mr Grindal's evidence as to his ongoing personal difficulties which continued through 2018 and involved the relocation at that time from Cairns to Brisbane with his children to commence new employment in early 2019.
3. Mr Grindal's evidence concerning the re-location and his concession that his management of the tax affairs of the Argus companies in the period prior to his resignation is:

In approximately November 2018, and considering the welfare of my children, I took the decision that I had to move to Brisbane. In particular, the need to have settled accommodation and manage my children's schooling better as a single parent were significant concerns.

My father took over operation of the Argus companies at that time. I did not actively manage the companies after that point.

In the period 2016 - 2018, I was not coping with the pressures brought on by my own personal difficulties and the difficulties of the business I had acquired. I accept that the Argus companies accrued debts to the Commissioner of Taxation during this period. I accept that, whilst I was director of those companies, I did not manage the tax affairs of these companies in a satisfactory manner.[33]

1. The Board submitted that the contrition expressed by Mr Grindal at the hearing should be viewed with scepticism considering the lack of earlier expressions of remorse and contrition in, for example, the letters from Mr Grindal's solicitors to the Board dated 25 October 2023[34] and 4 September 2024.[35] The Tribunal notes that this solicitor's correspondence is responding to concerns raised by the Board in its correspondence seeking further information and in relation to the submission prepared for the Board's conduct committee dated 3 July 2024. Although it is a matter for Mr Grindal as to whether and when an expression of remorse or contrition should be given, it is understandable that his solicitors might be cautious about doing that in the correspondence in question.
2. Mr Grindal was cross examined about the statements made by him in paragraphs [3], [6] and [18] of the Grindal Affidavit[36] as to his health issues and the impact those issues may have had on his mental state and the soundness of his judgment. Mr Grindal conceded the lack of medical evidence from treating doctors at the time and the lack of evidence about his mental state in his earlier written responses to the Board. The following exchange occurred on this issue:

Counsel: I put it to you that the evidence you're giving with respect to your judgment being significantly impaired is not true?

Counsel: I put it to you that evidence has been given purely for the design of getting a favourable outcome in these proceedings?

Mr Grindal: No. That's incorrect. If you actually know someone that's gone through chemotherapy, you'll understand what the drugs actually do. You have a mental fog. I genuinely cannot recall events accurately at that time. You don't think it at the time. You think everything is fine, but you cannot recall them.

Counsel: Again, that's the first evidence we're hearing of that now here today, isn't it?

Mr Grindal: That's the first evidence from me today, but it's common knowledge from people that have chemotherapy that this is what happens.[37]

1. There is no doubt that the Tribunal would have been assisted by contemporaneous medical evidence as to the state of Mr Grindal's health in 2018. In the absence of evidence from treating doctors, it is difficult to make any specific findings as to Mr Grindal's medical issues, although it is reasonable to conclude that Mr Grindal's health issues, including his chemotherapy treatment, likely compounded the other personal difficulties which he was facing in that period.
2. The Respondent's Closing Submissions draw upon Mr Grindal's evidence to identify three courses of conduct which were admitted by Mr Grindal. The admitted conduct was:

(a) In his capacity as a director of the Argus companies, Mr Grindal failed to comply with superannuation contributions in that employees were not paid their superannuation entitlements by one or more of the Argus companies.

(b) Mr Grindal was a director of the Argus companies, when one or more of those entities incurred taxation debts.

(c) Mr Grindal misled the Board when making annual declarations to the Board.[38]

1. The Board's position is that this admitted conduct alone warrants termination of Mr Grindal's registration and the imposition of a non-application period.[39] The Applicants submit that "this is not the worst of cases, and termination is not warranted."[40]

1. The Board called evidence from Ms Ward and Mr Fate on the question of Mr Grindal's conduct, first, towards Ms Ward in underpaying her wages and superannuation entitlements, and second, in having supplied false and misleading information in an application made under the BTW Program to obtain a payment for Argus Administration (Ms Ward's former employer) to which there was no entitlement. Ms Henry was called as another former employee of Argus Administration to show a pattern of underpayment of superannuation entitlements by that entity on Mr Grindal's watch.

(a) Ms Ward was employed by Mr Grindal to work at Argus Administration as a Business Support Officer, commencing her employment on 21 July 2017 and ceasing that employment on 21 December 2018.[41]

(b) Ms Ward's agreed fortnightly remuneration was $1,820 and she elected to receive 15% superannuation, payable into a Macquarie superannuation account.[42]

(c) Ms Ward's employment ceased abruptly in December 2018 and Mr Grindal did not advise her at the time of his resignation from Argus Administration or give her any written notice.[43]

(d) At the time of making the First Ward Statement, she was owed $7,111.50 in outstanding superannuation.[44]

(e) At the time of making the Second Ward Statement, she had not received any reconciliation of or payment of her outstanding entitlements. She deposes to having "experienced a consistent pattern of dishonest, exploitative and manipulative behaviour from Mr Grindal." [45]

(f) During the period of her employment, she knew Mr Grindal to be the person making the day-to-day decisions about the Argus companies.[46] And;

(g) Ms Ward had no direct dealings with Mr Grindal's father.[47]

1. The Applicants submit that Ms Ward's evidence was not adequate to make good the proposition that the declaration given by Mr Grindal to DESBT, to the effect that Ms Ward was in the continuous employment of Argus Administration for the period from July 2017 to July 2018, was false.[48]
2. The key points which emerged from the cross examination of Ms Ward, were as follows:

(a) Ms Ward and Ms Grindal were in a romantic relationship in the period from late 2016 until early 2017.[49]

(b) In February or March 2019, Ms Ward travelled from Cairns to Brisbane to relocate a motor vehicle and to deliver it and two dogs to Mr Grindal in Brisbane. It seems that the romantic relationship was continuing in some capacity at that time.[50]

(c) Ms Ward made several complaints in 2019 to organisations including the Fair Work Commission, the ATO and ASIC about Mr Grindal not having paid her entitlements when she was employed by Argus Administration.[51] Ms Ward agreed with the proposition that those complaints were motivated by what she perceived to be his poor treatment of her.[52]

(d) Ms Ward was eventually paid her SG entitlements after a delay of some years, with much of that delay occurring at the ATO in the period after remission of funds by Mr Grindal to the ATO in response to a director penalty notice.[53]

(e) Ms Ward was questioned at some length about the details of her employment arrangements and her leave accruals, and the leave taken by her. Her evidence is not inconsistent with her having been employed by one of the Argus companies throughout the period covered by the DESBT declaration.[54] And;

(f) Ms Ward's evidence about the leave accrued and taken by her is inconclusive and the documents which are in evidence do not allow for a definitive reconciliation of what in fact occurred whist she was employed by the Argus companies.

1. The Tribunal agrees with counsel's overall assessment of Ms Ward's evidence:

...the import of her evidence is that it indicates an employment relationship that is out of the ordinary. It suggests that documentary material does not record the complete nature of the employment relationship between Ms Ward, Argus and its principal, [Mr] Grindal, in 2017 and 2018.[55]

It follows that Ms Ward's evidence does not substantiate, on a balance of probabilities, the allegation that Mr Grindal's declaration given to DESBT was false and misleading_.[56]_

(a) He was employed by the DESBT at the relevant times and works as the Principal Compliance Officer for the BTW Program.[57]

(b) To be eligible for BTW funding for a 52-week payment claim an applicant must declare and provide evidence that the employee in respect of whom the claim was made had completed 52-weeks continuous employment.[58]

(c) Mr Fate investigated a 52-week payment claim submitted under the BTW Program relating to a payment of $6000 on account of Ms Ward's employment, as a suspected fraudulent claim.[59]

(d) On 13 December 2021, Mr Fate contacted Ms Ward by telephone and took a transcript of a complaint made by Ms Ward in respect of Mr Grindal's alleged underpayment of Ms Ward's salary and superannuation entitlements.[60]

(e) Mr Fate received and reviewed Ms Ward's bank statements covering the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2019. From that review he concluded:

These demonstrate that between 21 July 2017 and 26 July 2018, WARD was not paid $13,680 in net pay that [is] claimed as paid by GRINDAL. That is 18 weeks of employment WARD either did not work or was not paid for. Therefore, WARD was only engaged in paid employment for 34-weeks of employment during the 52-week claim period.[61]

(f) Mr Fate also compared payslips for Ms Ward provided by Mr Grindal with Ms Ward's 2017-2018 tax return and the bank statements which showed gross payments to Ms Ward of $44,590 when her bank statements showed the receipt of $25,188 from Argus Administration.[62] And;

(g) On the basis of the documentation provided, Mr Fate concluded that Mr Grindal had submitted false and misleading documentation in relation to Ms Ward's employment status to procure $6000 in public funding to which he was not entitled.[63]

1. The Applicants submit that Mr Fate's evidence was not adequate for the Tribunal to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the declaration made by Mr Grindal to obtain DESBT funding of $6000 was false and misleading.[64] That is because the evidence does not establish any specific periods in the relevant 52-week period when Ms Ward was not working.[65]
2. The key points which emerged from the cross examination of Mr Fate, were as follows:

(a) Mr Fate conceded that the applicant (and payment beneficiary) for the DESBT grant was Argus Administration, not Mr Grindal.[66]

(b) Mr Fate accepted that the eligibility condition of 52 weeks of continuous employment, did not have to be 52 weeks of paid employment.[67]

(c) Mr Fate's conclusion that the declaration in the DESBT grant application was false and misleading turned on an incorrect framing of the question that was being addressed in the declaration. The relevant exchange in the cross-examination bears this out:

Counsel: ... the declaration that the employee, that's Ms Ward, completed 52 weeks of continuous employment, you say that's false?

Counsel: And that's because you came to the conclusion that she had only worked for 34 weeks in paid employment, effectively?

Counsel: ... Your conclusion is that Ms Ward only worked 34 weeks or was only paid for 34 weeks of the 52-week year period that was required. That's your conclusion, isn't it?

(d) The sole source of the information relied upon by Mr Fate in making his findings arose from Ms Ward and he did not speak to Mr Grindal during his enquiries.[69]

(e) Ms Ward did not tell Mr Fate that she had been in a romantic relationship with Mr Grindal which had ended, a point which Mr Fate agreed would have been a "consideration".[70]

(f) Mr Fate agreed that the delay between the case being referred to the department for investigation in July 2019 and his investigation not commencing until 29 November 2021, may have resulted in some material evidence not being available and increased the doubt about what happened in 2017 and 2018.[71] and

(g) Mr Fate's evidence was that the Queensland Police Service had not acted on his referral to the police. Further, the internal ethics section at DESBT had determined that no criminal or corrupt conduct had been identified in the referral.[72]

1. The Tribunal also agrees with Mr Ferguson's overall assessment of Mr Fate's evidence:

... the evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that [Mr] Grindal has engaged in corrupt conduct or criminal conduct. The weight of evidence indicates that Ms Ward did in fact work during the relevant 52-week period. The evidence is not sufficient to ground a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that [Mr] Grindal made any false declarations to DESBT.[73]

1. In the Henry Witness Statement, Ms Henry states:

(a) Ms Henry was hired on 13 September 2017 by Mr Grindal to work at Argus Administration as an Administration Assistant (Business Support), ceasing that employment on 2 March 2018.[74]

(b) Ms Henry's agreed fortnightly remuneration was $1,640 and she elected to receive 10% superannuation.[75]

(c) During the period of her employment she knew Mr Grindal to be the person making the day-to-day decisions about the Argus companies.[76]

(d) Ms Henry decided to leave her employment on 23 February 2018 and informed Mr Grindal of that, but Mr Grindal required her to continue working until the end of her notice period on 2 March 2018 and because he said she had been overpaid her annual leave allowance.[77] And;

(e) Ms Henry was owed $1,394 in unpaid superannuation entitlements at the time she ceased her employment and had not been paid that amount at the time of making her statement.[78]

1. The only material evidence to emerge from Ms Henry's cross examination was confirmation from her testimony that the calculation sheet prepared by the ATO showing a superannuation shortfall liability for the quarter ending 30 June 2018 could be disregarded as Ms Henry did not work for Argus Administration after 2 March 2018.[79]

1. The Board relies upon breaches by Mr Grindal of subsection 30-10(1) of the Code in the TASA, in failing to act honestly and with integrity, which breaches are summarised at paragraph [107(a)-(g)] of the Respondent's Amended SFIC.[80]
2. Mr Grindal accepts the facts set out in subparagraphs [107(b)-(f)], which concern the making of a false statement in various annual declarations of Argus Private or Argus Accounting by indicating that the relevant entity had no overdue tax debts.
3. Mr Grindal contests subparagraph [107(a)], which relates to him providing false and misleading information to the DESBT in the BTW Program application. Mr Grindal also contests subparagraph [107(g)], which relates to him making a false statement when renewing his individual tax agent registration on 4 January 2021 by stating he had no overdue tax obligations when a company of which he was a director, Bluebirds Chest Pty Ltd (Bluebirds), had an overdue tax debt (not subject to an approved payment plan) and he had a Superannuation Guarantee (SG) director penalty debt which was unpaid. Mr Grindal's evidence is that he was not aware of the director penalty debt at the time of renewing his individual tax agent registration on 4 January 2021. He further submits that the subsequent reversal by the ATO of the Bluebirds debt shows acceptance by the ATO that the debt was not payable.[81]
4. The Board further relies upon breaches by Mr Grindal of subsection 30-10(2) of the Code in the TASA, in failing to comply with the taxation laws in the conduct of his personal affairs, which breaches are summarised at paragraph [108(a)-(f)] of the Respondent's Amended SFIC.[82]
5. Mr Grindal accepts the facts set out in subparagraphs [108(a)-(e)], which concern failures by him in his capacity as sole director of each of the Argus companies in making false or misleading statements to the Commissioner in lodging BAS claiming GST credits which were not allowable or were unsubstantiated, failing to ensure that ICA debts owing by Argus Private or Argus Accounting had been paid when resigning as director of those companies on 30 November 2018 and failure to pay SG entitlements to relevant employees of Argus Administration.
6. Mr Grindal contests subparagraph [108(f)], concerning his failure to notify the Board within 30 days of ceasing to be the sole director of Argus Accounting. Mr Grindal submits that there is no obligation on him (as an individual) under subsection 30-35(3)(c) of the TASA, to notify the Board of his resignation as a director of Argus Accounting.[83] The wording of the subsection indicates that the reporting obligation in this instance fell upon Argus Accounting rather than upon Mr Grindal.
7. The Board also contends that Mr Grindal ceased to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under subparagraph 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA that he is a fit and proper person by reason of the breaches described in paragraph [109] of the Respondent's Amended SFIC.[84]
8. Mr Grindal accepts the facts set out in paragraph [109(a)], that is that he caused loss to some of his former employees by not ensuring that the relevant Argus companies met their SG payment obligations. He also concedes the matters in subparagraph [109(b)], as to causing loss to the ATO by failing to have the Argus companies pay their tax debts accrued in relation to audit outcomes in the period when he was the sole director of these companies.
9. The matters set out in subparagraphs [109(c)-(f)], including failing to declare outstanding tax obligations and generally engaging in behaviour which failed to comply with taxation laws either as an individual or as a director/employer, are also broadly accepted by Mr Grindal.
10. In summary, Mr Grindal accepts that in the time encompassed by the issues relied upon by the Board, being the period between 2016 and the suspension of his tax agent registration in February 2022, he was not "a fit and proper person" for the purposes of subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA.
11. The Board submits, and Mr Grindal accepts, that at all times when Mr Grindal could not meet the tax practitioner registration requirement of fit and proper person under subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA, Protego in turn was not able to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement under subsection 20-5(3)(a) of the TASA.

1. In essence the Applicants contend that the conduct of Mr Grindal about which the Board complains, and which is the subject of the Reviewable Decisions, has already been the subject of earlier investigations by the Board, which resulted in Mr Grindal being suspended as a taxation practitioner in 2022. In the period since his reinstatement as a tax agent on 31 October 2022 following the serving of his suspension, Mr Grindal has not re-offended and has demonstrated his fitness and propriety to be a registered tax practitioner.[85]
2. The Applicants state that the question of whether Mr Grindal meets the fitness and propriety requirement is a factual matter to be determined by the Tribunal at the date of the hearing on the evidence before it. That being the case, the submission they make is... "that [Mr] Grindal should be assessed as being currently a fit and proper person, notwithstanding that he has not always been so."[86]
3. The timing of the determination as to whether Mr Grindal meets the "fit and proper person" eligibility requirement in subsection 20-5(1)(a) of the TASA assumes particular importance where, as seems to be the case, the alleged misconduct by Mr Grindal upon the Board relies, occurred prior to Mr Grindal resuming his tax agent practice in late October 2022.
4. The relevant Board investigations and compliance outcomes are described in the Applicants' Amended SFIC as the following:

(a) the Board's investigation in 2019 (finalised in early 2020) into events occurring in 2017-2018 including ATO audits of unpaid superannuation entitlements by the Argus companies which were the subject of employee complaints. The 2019 investigation did not result in formal findings of breaches of the TASA by Mr Grindal and no further action was taken by the Board.[87]

(b) the Board's investigation in 2021 into events around declaration omissions in 2016-2018 and an issue concerning a BAS lodged in 2020 to obtain a COVID-19 Cash Flow Boost payment for an entity not entitled to that payment. The 2021 investigation resulted in the Board's decision on 17 February 2022 to suspend Mr Grindal's tax agent registration for 6 months and requiring him to complete an ethics course. The sanctions imposed on him were complied with by Mr Grindal and he was re-registered from 31 October 2022.[88] and

(c) the Board's investigation in 2023-2024 (under Subsection 60-E of the TASA), which was instigated by Ms Ward's complaints in 2023. The 2023-2024 investigations led to the Reviewable Decisions and the current applications for review.[89]

1. The Applicants submit in relation to the chronology of investigations by the Board:

... the Applicants emphasise that all of the conduct now at issue is historical. There have been no new incidents of non-compliance since Mr Grindal resumed practice in late 2022. The question for the Tribunal is whether, in view of those past events (which have already been dealt with once) and Mr Grindal's conduct since, the extreme step of termination is necessary or appropriate.[90]

1. The Applicants contend that the Board, when imposing sanctions that accord with the section 2-5 objects clause of the TASA, should be acting in a protective and forward-looking manner rather than adopting a punitive approach. They say that to the extent that a practitioner has previously been sanctioned and then has taken steps to correct past misconduct, imposing further sanctions for the same past misconduct does not serve the protective purpose.[91]
2. The Applicants' position is that the public can be protected, and proper industry standards maintained by the Board, without the need to impose the most serious available sanction of termination on Mr Grindal and, consequently, Protego. The Board's previous suspension of Mr Grindal has had the desired effect on Mr Grindal's behaviour and the protective purpose of the TASA will not be further served by the cancellation of his registration.

1. This is a case in which Mr Grindal has at an earlier time been a fit and proper person for the purposes of his registration as a tax agent, has then ceased by his misconduct to meet the tax practitioner registration requirement of being a fit and proper person, and now submits that with the passage of time (and there being no further offending conduct by him), he ought once again to be treated as a fit and proper person for registration purposes.
2. Mr Grindal's rehabilitation as a tax practitioner is described in the Applicants Submissions in the following terms:

Since [Mr] Grindal returned to practice [i]n October 2022, there have been no complaints from clients; no systemic problems with lodgements or audit outcomes have been identified by the ATO; no indication that employee entitlements are not being met; and no suggestion that [Mr] Grindal has been anything other than honest in his dealings with the Board. He has been providing, or supervising the provision of, tax agent services for in excess of 1000 clients.[92]

1. The Board's position was that much has been made by Mr Grindal of his compliance with the Code in the TASA in the period since his previous sanction and including the period since the Reviewable Decisions, but this was at best a neutral matter, as any registered tax agent is required to comply with the Code and other standards of professional conduct as a matter of course.[93]
2. There does not appear to be a comparable reported case where a sanction was imposed on a practitioner, complied with by the practitioner and the Board subsequently imposed a further sanction referrable to conduct dating from the same time period (albeit not the same conduct which resulted in the previous sanction).
3. In Kishore and Tax Practitioners Board [94] (Kishore), Deputy President Frost, in a case where a breach of subsection 30-10(1) of the Code in the TASA was established, set aside the Board's suspension of a practitioner and imposed a written caution instead. The Tribunal summarised the principles to be adopted by a decision maker in imposing an appropriate sanction as follows:

The imposition of a sanction is not for the purpose of punishing the individual, but for the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards within the regulated industry. A sanction may also serve the purpose of personal deterrence (to encourage the individual to comply with standards in the future) or general deterrence (to encourage others to comply).

In deciding an appropriate sanction, a decision-maker should take into account the following:

* the seriousness of the conduct warranting the sanction;

* the likelihood that the conduct will be repeated and the potential harm to the public if it is;

* the impact of a particular sanction on the individual (and especially where the sanction may inhibit or prevent the individual's capacity to earn a living);

*the interest of the public in seeing appropriate sanctions applied;

* the extent to which the individual has acknowledged the breaches and the seriousness of them; and

* the extent to which the individual has demonstrated genuine contrition or remorse. ...

Termination of registration should be reserved for the most serious cases of wrongdoing. That is because, except in the most serious of cases, the public and the regulated industry can generally be adequately protected, and the public interest adequately served, by a sanction less severe than termination, or by no sanction at all.[95]

1. The approach to sanction in Kishore has been endorsed and applied by the Tribunal is subsequent cases, for example by Deputy President McCabe in Ridden and Tax Practitioners Board.[96]
2. Mr Grindal submits that as his practice has been conducted without incident since 2022, there is little likelihood of the conduct which has been of concern to the Board in the past being repeated. With respect to the issues around the failure to pay SG and other entitlements to employees of Argus Administration in 2017, Mr Grindal says that the amounts owing were ultimately paid to those employees. Mr Grindal has accepted that this conduct towards employees was inappropriate and wrong and that the conduct has not been repeated.[97]
3. Mr Grindal referred the Tribunal in his submissions to the recent Tribunal decisions in Borella and Tax Practitioners Board[98] (Borella) and Lecky and Tax Practitioners Board[99] (Lecky).[100]
4. In Borella, the Board had terminated the tax practitioner's registration and precluded him from re-applying for registration for a period of two years. Mr Borella had engaged in a range of misconduct including failures in respect of his own tax obligations (in breach of subsection 30-10(2) of the Code in the TASA) and failures to comply with orders made by the Board and the Tribunal in relation to previous disciplinary matters.
5. The Tribunal found that Mr Borella had remedied many of his breaches by the time of the hearing, but others had continued while the proceedings were in progress and remained outstanding at the hearing. The Tribunal also made a finding that Mr Borella had failed to express contrition or show any insight about his numerous prior breaches. Deputy President Lazanas referred to the principles in Kishore and concluded that the Board's decision should be affirmed because despite being given multiple opportunities to rehabilitate, he had" not demonstrated any capacity or willingness to do so", nor had he shown any insight into or contrition for his failures.[101]
6. The points of distinction between Borella and the present case are that Mr Grindal's misconduct was less extensive and less serious than Mr Borella's and there were no ongoing breaches by Mr Grindal during the life of the application for review and up to the hearing, and Mr Grindal had acknowledged much of his past wrongdoing and had made some efforts to rehabilitate (or at least to avoid recidivism).
7. In Lecky, the Board had determined that Ms Lecky had contravened subsections 30-10(1), (2), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12) and (14) of the Code in the TASA, and was not a fit and proper person. As in Borella and the present case, the Board's sanction was termination and preclusion from re-applying for registration for a period of 2 years.
8. The facts in Lecky were different to the present case in that the applicant's personal tax affairs and of a farming partnership in which she was partner, were still not up to date at the time of the hearing and some of the misconduct by Ms Lecky involved client income tax returns and systemic issues in their preparation which had been revealed by ATO audits. Both of those elements were lacking in this case. In the event, the Tribunal in Lecky substituted a period of suspension (for a period sufficient to bring her personal tax affairs up to date and to complete 30 hours of outstanding continuing professional education).
9. Mr Grindal submits that the Tribunal should assess him, presently,[102] as either:

(a) "... being currently a fit and proper person, notwithstanding that he has not always been so."[103] or

(b) if "he is not presently a fit and proper person...that the discretion in s40-5(1) should be exercised in his favour, and his registration should not be cancelled."[104]

1. If the Tribunal were to find that he is currently a fit and proper person, Mr Grindal submits, on the question of sanction:

While it does not automatically follow from that finding that no sanction should be imposed, the Applicants contend that having regard to the requirements of s 60-125(2), and to previous sanctions, it would be appropriate to decide that no further action be taken.[105]

1. Alternatively, if he is found not to currently be a fit and proper person, then having regard to the requirements of section 60-125, an order should be made under Subdivision 30-B which provides that Mr Grindal practice for a period under the supervision of another registered tax practitioner and/or that he be issued with a written caution.[106]
2. I now turn to a brief consideration of each of the Kishore sanction considerations.

1. Mr Grindal's admitted conduct is sufficient to establish that breaches of subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code in the TASA occurred. The conduct is serious, extending as it does to false declarations to the Board and to the ATO and failing to pay employees their superannuation and other entitlements when they were due. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the DESBT declaration was false and misleading but, based on the breaches of the Code which were admitted by Mr Grindal, is persuaded that sanctions need to be imposed on the Applicants.

1. The Tribunal has considered the Board's submission that Mr Grindal had not established a sufficient likelihood that the conduct complained of would not be repeated, given Mr Grindal's past failure to properly explain "how the impugned behaviour came about."[107] The hearing has shed some light on the reasons for the misconduct which occurred in the period 2016 - 2018.
2. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the risk of future conduct by Mr Grindal in breach of the TASA is not high. Having said that, by imposing a supervision order, the Tribunal's intention is to further reduce the likelihood of any future breach by Mr Grindal of the Code in the TASA.

1. Mr Grindal has stated that he has suffered significant loss of income as the result of the Reviewable Decisions. A significant portion of Protego's client revenue is said to have exited the business in the period between the Reviewable Decisions taking effect and the granting of a stay order, and that revenue has not returned to the business.[108]
2. Financial hardship for the de-registered tax agent and his or her family and clients is a factor to be weighed in the balance when determining an appropriate sanction but must be viewed in the context of the privileged status enjoyed by a registered tax agent and the financial risk that accompanies that privilege if the Board lawfully intervenes.
3. As Deputy President McCabe, in Le'Sam Accounting Pty Ltd and Tax Practitioners Board[109], explained:

"The parliament has seen fit to regulate this occupation. It has established barriers to entry to keep out unsatisfactory rivals but also incidentally suppress competition and confer benefits on registrants. One implicitly accepts the risk of regulatory action interrupting the business. The Tribunal's review is one mechanism for ensuring regulatory action is not capricious or unfair."[110]

Interest of public in seeing appropriate sanctions applied

1. As was stated by the Tribunal in Ham and Tax Practitioners Board[111]:

...I agree with the submission of the Board's counsel, that the principal purpose of the [TASA] provisions regarding registration of tax practitioners is to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the tax agent profession; it is not to punish misconduct or improper or unprofessional conduct.[112]

The Board has submitted, and the Tribunal agrees, there is a clear public interest in sanctions being applied in appropriate cases to maintain public confidence in the profession.

1. Further, the Board referred the Tribunal to what was said by Deputy President Humphries in Carter and Tax Practitioners Board,[113] in circumstances where serious breaches by a practitioner of the TASA have occurred:

To not suspend his registration, given the substantial failures of judgement Mr Carter displayed, would be to send a misleading signal to the public and to other tax agents about the consequences of such failures in the provision of professional services. The Tribunal does not propose to do this.[114]

1. The Tribunal is in no doubt that this is an appropriate case for the imposition of a sanction or sanctions. Contrary to what he had earlier said in writing before the hearing, Mr Grindal sensibly did not submit in his closing argument at the hearing that no sanction should be imposed upon the Applicants by the Tribunal.

Extent to which individual has acknowledged the breaches and their seriousness

1. The Board contends that Mr Grindal has not sufficiently acknowledged the breaches for this consideration to count in his favour.[115] Balanced against that, and as set out in paragraphs [30], [33], [39], [43], [57], [60], [63] to [66] and [80] above, Mr Grindal does not contest many of the aspects of his alleged misconduct, particularly in respect of his breaches of subsections 30-10(1) and 30-10(2) of the Code in the TASA.

Extent to which genuine contrition or remorse demonstrated

1. The leading statement of guiding principle for the Tribunal in considering questions of remorse and contrition is to be found in Stasos v Tax Agents' Board of New South Wales[116] (Stasos), where Hill J said:

However, a person who has been shown to be other than a fit and proper person to be registered must satisfy the Tribunal considering his re-registration or cancellation of his registration as the case may be, that he appreciates the significance of his wrongdoing, that he regrets it and that he has rehabilitated himself such that it is truly unlikely that there will be any lapse in the future of the standards which are required of him. The more serious his dereliction from duty the longer may be the time necessary to show this. It will not be sufficient for him to merely express his contrition. The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that not only is that contrition actually felt, but that he will not again deviate from the high standards required of him as a registered tax agent.[117]

1. The Board contends that Mr Grindal "has not shown sufficient acknowledged contrition or remorse for this consideration to count in his favour",[118] and says that the evidence points to a finding that Mr Grindal was not genuinely remorseful.[119] Mr Grindal denies that he lacks sufficient remorse or contrition.
2. In his evidence in chief, Mr Grindal said:

Counsel: Looking back now at your conduct in 2016, 2017 and 2018... Do you accept that that conduct was wrong?

Counsel: Do you regret that that behaviour occurred?

In cross examination, Mr Grindal stated that it was incorrect to suggest that the contrition recently expressed by him was designed purely to gain a favourable outcome in the proceeding.[121]

1. It can be difficult for the Tribunal to divine from contested evidence whether an expression of remorse or contrition is genuine. Often the best measure of whether a person has truly sought to rehabilitate themselves is to examine their behaviour in the period since the misconduct, which has given rise to the decision under review, took place. Mr Grindal's contention in effect is that the Tribunal ought to be satisfied that he "has understood the error of his ways"[122] because, since he returned to practice in October 2022, the evidence shows that he has conducted himself as a registered tax agent is expected to conduct himself.
2. In his closing argument, Mr Ferguson, after making it clear that he was not suggesting that no sanction be imposed, made the following submissions in respect of the imposition of a hybrid sanction involving a written caution coupled with a supervision order:

But there is an artificiality in cautioning someone about something which happened eight years ago, or seven years ago as the case may be...to give the Tribunal and the Board comfort, and to ensure that the objects of the Act are maintained - that an appropriate sanction for Mr Grindal would be for a period of supervision. In other words, that he would work under supervision by a separate agent, and it may be as part of that, that that supervising agent become the operative mind of Protego as well... [123]

It may well be appropriate to issue a caution but there should be some intervention in Mr Grindal's practice which ensures that at least for a period of time there's some protection and some assurance that his behaviour is being monitored without intervention of the Board.[124]

1. As stated earlier, the Board's submission on sanction is that "Mr Grindal's admitted conduct alone warrants termination." The Board further submits that in effect it would be contrary to the objects set out in section 2-5 of the TASA not to terminate Mr Grindal's registration and to impose a period of disqualification from practice.[125] As explained, the Tribunal agrees that Mr Grindal's admitted conduct alone mandates that sanctions should be imposed. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the objects of the TASA can be met without the termination of Mr Grindal's registration and that the hybrid sanction proposed by Mr Ferguson has merit.
2. Having regard to the fact that Mr Grindal has served a period of suspension in 2022, and to the fact that the Tribunal will be imposing sanctions which seek to achieve a fair balance of the competing considerations raised by the facts of this case, the Tribunal has determined that this is not a case where a further suspension or a termination of the Applicants registration would be the correct decision.
3. The Tribunal considers in all of the circumstances of this case, that while Mr Grindal is not a fit and proper person at the date of this decision, his unfitness for registration should not be treated on the facts before the Tribunal as being a permanent condition. The evidence tends to show that he is well advanced on a path of satisfactory rehabilitation that should see him fit for registration in the reasonably foreseeable future.
4. The successful completion of the 12 months of supervision which I have determined should form a part of his sanction, when aggregated with his conduct as a tax practitioner in the period since October 2022 (when he returned to practice after serving a 6-month suspension), should be sufficient to render him eligible for re-registration as a tax agent in the normal course. The mentoring by another registered tax agent, which Mr Grindal will benefit from as the consequence of the proposed supervision order, should assist Mr Grindal in meeting the Stasos goal of not again deviating from the high standards required of him as a registered tax agent.
5. The Tribunal considers that the proposed substituted decision set out below will satisfy the public interest requirement that the sanctions being applied to the Applicants (and explained in these Reasons) will have the effect of maintaining public confidence in the profession.
6. The Tribunal finds that the preferable decision in the circumstances of these matters is to set aside Reviewable Decisions and to substitute decisions in the following terms:

1. In respect of Christopher Grindal (Mr Grindal) (application 2024/8577), the Tribunal sets aside the Boards' decisions under subsections 40-5(1)(b) and 40-25(1) of the TASA and in substitution decides that:

(a) under subsection 30-15(2)(a) of the TASA, the Board issue Mr Grindal with a written caution; and

(b) under subsections 30-15(2)(b) and 30-20(1)(b) of the TASA, Mr Grindal provide tax agent services for which he is registered only under the supervision of a registered tax agent whose identity is approved by the Board, on such conditions as to reporting as the Board shall impose, for a period of 12 months from the date of this Decision.

2. In respect of Protego Consulting Pty Ltd (Protego) (application 2024/8576), the Tribunal sets aside the Board's decisions under subsections 40-15(1)(b) and 40-25(1) of the TASA and in substitution decides that Protego's registration be suspended until such time as Mr Grindal resigns as director and an alternate director (being a fit and proper person) is appointed to Protego, and such alternate director shall remain in office for the duration of the period for which Mr Grindal is registered only under the supervision of a registered tax agent, as provided for in paragraph 1(b) above. Upon the successful completion of his 12-month period under the supervision of a registered tax agent, Mr Grindal may be re-appointed as a director of Protego.

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms A Brown, Ms S Pannam (Tax Practitioners Board)

[1] Applications for review were filed by Mr Grindal and Protego on 24 October 2024: JHB, pages 10 - 21 and 818 - 829 respectively.

[4] Decision extract of Board Conduct Committee meeting of 12 September 2024: JHB, pages 800 - 808.

[5] Decision extract of Board Conduct Committee meeting of 12 September 2024: JHB, pages 836 - 840.

[6] Respondent's Submissions, [39] - [40].

[16] Respondent's SFIC, [1], THB pages 982 - 983; Applicants' SFIC, [15] - [17], THB page 1358.

[18] Applicants Closing Submissions, [11].

[19] Grindal Affidavit, [3], [5], THB pages1365 - 1366.

[20] Grindal Affidavit, [4], THB page 1365.

[21] Grindal Affidavit, [7], THB page 1366.

[22] Grindal Affidavit, [8] - [14], THB pages 1366 - 1367.

[23] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [3], THB page 1373.

[24] Respondent's Reply, [5], THB page 1058.

[32] Respondent's Closing Submissions, [12].

[33] Grindal Affidavit, [14] - [16], THB page 1367.

[38] Respondent's Closing Submissions, [3].

[39] Respondent's Closing Submissions, [4], [31], [32].

[40] Applicants Closing Submissions, [64].

[41] Second Ward Statement, [5], [8], [10], THB pages 1061 - 1062.

[42] First Ward Statement, [4], THB page 1065.

[43] Second Ward Statement, [8], THB pages 1061 - 1062.

[44] First Ward Statement, [31], [32], THB page 1069.

[45] Second Ward Statement, [14], THB page 1062.

[46] Second Ward Statement, [6], THB page 1061.

[47] Second Ward Statement, [12], THB page 1062.

[48] Applicants Closing Submissions, [18[ - [27].

[55] Applicants Closing Submissions, [25].

[56] Applicants Closing Submissions, [27].

[57] Fate Statement, [3], THB page 1139.

[58] Fate Statement, [5], THB page 1139.

[59] Fate Statement, [10] - [12], THB pages 1140 - 1141.

[60] Fate Statement, [14], THB page 1141.

[61] Fate Statement, [15], THB page 1142.

[62] Fate Statement, [16], THB page 1142.

[63] Fate Statement, [17], THB page 1142.

[64] Applicants Closing Submissions, [28] - [42].

[65] Applicants Closing Submissions, [32] - [33].

[73] Applicants Closing Submissions, [41].

[74] Henry Statement, [3], [4], [11], THB pages 698 - 699.

[75] Henry Statement, [4], THB page 698.

[76] Henry Statement, [5], THB page 698.

[77] Henry Statement, [11]- [13], THB page 699.

[78] Henry Statement, [17]-[18], THB page 700.

[81] Applicants Closing Submissions, [6].

[83] Applicants Closing Submissions, [14] - [17].

[85] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [4], THB page 1372.

[87] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [5], THB page 1373; Applicants' Submissions, [30] - [32].

[88] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [6], THB page 1373; Applicant's Submissions, [33] - [38].

[89] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [7], THB page 1373 - 1374.

[90] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [11], THB page 1375.

[91] Applicants' Amended SFIC, [D.1[1]], THB page 1379.

[93] Respondents Closing Submissions, [29].

[94] [2017] AATA 271.

[95] [2017] AATA 271, [18] - [20].

[96] [2020] AATA 422, [23] - [24].

[98] [2023] AATA 3478.

[100] Applicants' Submissions, [90] - [101].

[101] [2023] AATA 3478, [107].

[102] The assessment is to be made at the time of decision, not the time of the wrongdoing: Re Li and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 299, [52].

[103] Applicants' Submissions, [102].

[104] Applicants' Submissions, [103].

[105] Applicants' Submissions, [102].

[106] Applicants' Submissions, [104]; Applicants Closing Submissions, [71].

[107] Respondent's Submissions, [105(e)].

[108] Applicants SFIC, [67] - [71], THB page 1364.

[109] [2020] AATA 890.

[110] [2020] AATA 890 at [32].

[111] [2017] AATA 1642.

[112] [2017] AATA 1642, [132].

[113] [2017] AATA 528.

[114] [2017] AATA 528, [67].

[115] Respondent's Submissions, [105(l)].

[116] [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974.

[117] (19990) [1990] FCA 379; 21 ATR 974, 985.

[118] Respondent's Submissions, [105(m)].

[119] Respondent's Closing Submissions, [18].

[122] Stasos v Tax Agents' Board of New South Wales [1990] FCA 379; (1990) 21 ATR 974 at 983.

[125] Respondent's Closing Submissions, [31].