Tax Practitioners Board v Buckland (Interim Injunction)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] FCA 836
• Date: 25 July 2023

Federal Court of Australia

Tax Practitioners Board v Buckland (Interim Injunction) [2023] FCA 836

File number(s):	NTD 18 of 2022
Judgment of:	HESPE J
Date of judgment:	25 July 2023
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interlocutory injunction to restrain respondents from preparing and lodging income tax returns – where respondents located overseas – where respondents not registered tax agents
Legislation:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] HCA 63 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2009) 189 IR 37; [2009] FCA 997 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 244 FCR 538; [2016] FCA 976 Avant Group Pty Ltd v Kiddle [2023] FCA 685 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618; [1968] HCA 1 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 ; [1986] HCA 58 Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 425; [2006] FCAFC 116 ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1992) 38 FCR 248 Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners’ Association (1908) 6 CLR 309; [1908] HCA 95 Milam v University of Melbourne (2019) 285 IR 309; [2019] FCA 171 Morgan v White (1912) 15 CLR 1 Patrick Stevedores Operations (1998) 195 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 30 Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis AU Pty Ltd (2017) 257 FCR 62; [2017] FCAFC 193 Tax Practitioners Board v Buckland [2022] FCA 1376 Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker [2020] FCA 1047 Tax Practitioners Board v Shanahan [2013] FCA 764 Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Northern Territory
National Practice Area:	Taxation
Number of paragraphs:	52
Date of last submission/s:	7 July 2023
Date of hearing:	29 June 2023
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M J Follett
Solicitor for the Applicant:	MinterEllison
Counsel for the First Respondent	The first respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent did not appear

ORDERS

		NTD 18 of 2022
BETWEEN:	TAX PRACTITIONERS BOARD Applicant
AND:	ANTHONY DEAN BUCKLAND First Respondent ; APAT NA SEASONS PILIPINAS CORPORATION Second Respondent

order made by:	HESPE J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 July 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. In these orders:

1. “income tax return” has the meaning provided for in section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth);

2. “taxpayer” has the meaning provided for in section 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth); and

3. “TAS Act” means the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth).

2. Pursuant to section 70-5(2) of the TAS Act, until the hearing and determination of the amended originating application or further order, the first respondent be restrained from preparing and/or lodging any income tax return for a taxpayer, for a fee or other reward, whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act.

3. Pursuant to section 70-5(2) of the TAS Act, until the hearing and determination of the amended originating application or further order, the second respondent, whether by itself, its officers, servants, agents or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from preparing and/or lodging any income tax return for a taxpayer, for a fee or other reward, whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act.

4. The matter be listed for case management.

5. Costs be reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HESPE J:

1. The applicant is the Tax Practitioners Board. By an amended originating application, the Board alleges that each of the first respondent (Mr Anthony Buckland) and the second respondent (Apat na Seasons Pilipinas Corporation) contravened certain provisions of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) (the TAS Act) and seeks (among other things) declarations that:

1. the first respondent, Mr Buckland, contravened s 50-5(1) of the TAS Act by providing tax agent services, including the preparation and lodgment of income tax returns for Australian taxpayers for a fee or other reward, whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act.

2. the second respondent, Apat, contravened s 50-5(1) of the TAS Act by providing tax agent services, including the preparation and lodgment of income tax returns for Australian taxpayers for a fee or other reward, whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act.

2. By the present interlocutory application the Board seeks, pursuant to s 70-5(2) of the TAS Act:

1. an interlocutory or interim injunction restraining Mr Buckland “from preparing and/or lodging any income tax return [as that term is defined in s 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA 97)] for a taxpayer, for a fee or other reward whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act”, until the hearing and determination of the amended originating application or further order.

2. an interlocutory or interim injunction restraining Apat “from preparing and/or lodging any income tax return [as that term is defined in s 995-1 of the ITAA 97] for a taxpayer, for a fee or other reward whilst not a registered tax agent within the meaning of the TAS Act”, until the hearing and determination of the amended originating application or further order.

3. Mr Buckland is self-represented. The second respondent has not filed a notice of appearance. Leave was granted to the applicant to proceed with the interlocutory application against the second respondent pursuant to rule 10.43D of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) by Order of the Court dated 14 June 2023.

Evidence relied upon

4. The applicant relies upon 11 affidavits in support of its application (in addition to affidavits relating to service):

1. An affidavit of Ms Guise, an individual taxpayer, in which she gives evidence of her interactions with a person she believed to be Mr Buckland. Ms Guise testified that a person she believed to be Mr Buckland prepared and lodged her 2021 income tax return. Apart from emails she sent to an email address containing the name of Apat, her interactions with the person she believed to be Mr Buckland were via Facebook Messenger. The communications included providing her myGov login details and security codes. Ms Guise’s...