TPB signals facilitative approach on TASA Code implementation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f222/0f222d4c9cd1e25216b9bd245399cbad4ef6a119" alt="Male figure steps into gap"
In the wake of the Government having been pushed to deliver key concessions on the TASA Code of Conduct Determination, the Tax Practitioners’ Board (TPB) has vowed to take a facilitative approach to its implementation.
The TPB is undertaking further consultation to develop what it is describing as “practical guidance”
In a statement issued ahead of the consultation, TPB Chair Peter de Cure said, “for all tax practitioners trying to do the right thing, we will continue to take a pragmatic and practical approach in addressing compliance with the additional obligations”.
“Our approach is to achieve voluntary compliance through education and support. Any TPB investigation will be targeted at higher risk behaviours and misconduct,” de Cure said.
“These changes to the Determination provide additional certainty to tax practitioners on the intent and scope of the new Code obligations. This includes setting out the specific matters tax practitioners need to inform their clients about, which does not include information relating to the tax practitioner’s health or their personal beliefs,” he said.
Following a stakeholder roundtable, de Cure thanked participants for their ongoing contribution and co-design: “These new Code obligations build on the principles in the existing law. Most tax practitioners, acting professionally and ethically, will readily comply with the new Code requirements. The TPB’s guidance will help tax professionals improve their services to clients and systems to comply with the law”.
“We are committed to supporting tax practitioners through this process of change. Our draft guidance will also be strengthened by a series of webinars to further assist tax practitioners understand the draft guidance, ask questions and provide feedback that will shape the final products.”
100% just ask this financial planner they banned for alleged churning based on incomplete & manipulated information. I guess this…
non-disclosed to members in any way they would understand, as it will be paid via an investment reserve set aside…
ASIC hardly need to stonewall questioning of them, it’s benign stuff. Anyone who’s watched Bragg in action and especially those…
Who pays the fine? The members?
And yet they publish bannings and such for ‘crimes’ of far less…for smaller fry advisers…