Forthcoming hearings

The articles in this section outline forthcoming hearings

The following case is being heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board on 25 May 2022 at 10.00am by teleconference:

Case ref. TDB/2020/24 – Mr Kevin James

Mr James faces the following charges:

Charge 1
1.1 On or about 26 May 2020, the Association of Accounting Technicians (“AAT”):
a) made a finding against Mr James to the effect that he had breached the
AAT’s Code of Professional Ethics and to have posed a risk to the public or was likely to undermine public confidence in the AAT or its members;
b) made an Order expelling Mr James from the AAT for a period of three years.

1.2 The grounds for the Order made by AAT were that:
“For an unknown period up until on or around 18 February 2020, whilst a full member of AAT, [Mr James] provided self-employed accountancy services to the public without being registered or licensed to do so or approved as being exempt from holding a licence.”

1.3 Consequent upon the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, Mr James is in breach of:
a) rule 2.1, in that Mr James failed to avoid any action which discredits the profession;
b) rule 2.6.3, in that Mr James conducted himself in a manner which was unbefitting and/or unlawful and/or illegal which tends to bring discredit upon a member and/or which may harm the standing of the profession and/or the ATT.

Charge 2
Mr James failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at the ATT in writing of the disciplinary action taken against him by the AAT or his expulsion from AAT within two months of the date of such action, as required by rule 2.14.2, or at all.

Charge 3
Contrary to rule 2.13.2, Mr James failed to reply to correspondence from the TDB dated:
• 11 August 2020
• 29 September 2020
• 10 May 2021
• 3 June 2021
• 4 June 2021
• 16 June 2021

This hearing is open to members of the public. Any request to observe the hearing should be made by email to the Clerk to the Disciplinary Tribunal (nbremner@tax-board.org.uk) not less than 24 hours before the hearing to allow the necessary arrangements to be made.

The following case is being heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board on 27 June 2022 at 10.00am by teleconference:

Case ref. TDB/2021/23 – Mr Neil Barrett

Mr Barrett faces the following charges:

Charge 1

1.1 On or about 12 November 2020, the Association of Accounting Technicians (“AAT”):

a) made a finding against Mr Barrett to the effect that his professional or personal conduct was in breach of the AAT’s Code of Professional Ethics and posed a risk to the public or was likely to undermine public confidence in the AAT or its members;

b) Imposed the following sanctions:

  1. Reprimand, with the reprimand remaining live on his records for a period of 24 months
  2. Warning about his future conduct
  3. A fine of £2,436

    1.2 The grounds for the Order made by AAT, with Mr Barrett’s consent, were that: 

    “Between on or around 23 October 2009 and on or around 1 October 2020, Mr Neil Barrett provided self-employed accountancy and/or bookkeeping and/or related services to the public without being registered or licenced, or approved to provide such services whilst subject to an exemption”.

    1.3 Consequent upon the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, Mr Barrett is in breach of:

    a) rule 2.1, in that Mr Barrett failed to comply with relevant laws and regulations and avoid any action which discredits the profession;

    b) rule 2.6.3, in that Mr Barrett conducted himself in a manner which was unbefitting and/or unlawful and/or illegal which tends to bring discredit upon a member and/or which may harm the standing of the profession and/or the ATT.

     

    Charge 2

    Mr Barrett failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at the ATT in writing of the disciplinary action taken against him by the AAT within two months of the date of such action, as required by rule 2.14.2, or at all.

     

    Charge 3

    Mr Barrett failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB dated 1 July 2021, 28 July 2021 and 27 August 2021 until 23 September 2021. In doing so, he failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without reasonable delay, as required by rule 2.13.2.

     

    This hearing is open to members of the public. Any request to observe the hearing should be made by email to the Clerk to the Disciplinary Tribunal (nbremner@tax-board.org.uk) not less than 24 hours before the hearing to allow the necessary arrangements to be made.

    The following case is being heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board on 27 July 2022 at 10.00am by teleconference:

    Case ref. TDB/2019– Mr Cho Han Michael Feng

    Mr Feng faces the following charges:

    Charge 1

    1.1.    On 21 May 2019 Mr Feng sent an email containing a document referred to as a ‘witness statement’ to a third party, disclosing thereby to the recipients of the email information provided by his client to Mr Feng as his client. Mr Feng’s actions were in breach of:

    (a)   Rule 2.5.1, in that by sending the document Mr Feng breached the duty of confidentiality he owed to his client in respect of the information he disclosed;

    (b)   Rule 2.5.2, in that he divulged information acquired in the course of his work without the consent of his client to do so or a legal or professional right or duty to disclose the information.

    1.2.    Mr Feng breached Rule 2.6.3 in that he conducted himself in an unbefitting manner which tends to bring discredit upon a member and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the ATT.

    This hearing is open to members of the public. Any request to observe the hearing should be made by email to the Clerk to the Disciplinary Tribunal (nbremner@tax-board.org.uk) not less than 24 hours before the hearing to allow the necessary arrangements to be made.

    Disciplinary Hearings

    The articles in this section outline the findings of disciplinary hearings

    Mr Kevin James

    At its hearing on 25 May 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Kevin James of St Austell , a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of the following charges::

    Charge 1
    1.1 On or about 26 May 2020, the Association of Accounting Technicians (“AAT”):

    a) made a finding against Mr James to the effect that he had breached the AAT’s Code of Professional Ethics and to have posed a risk to the public or was likely to undermine public confidence in the AAT or its members;

    b) made an Order expelling Mr James from the AAT for a period of three years.

    1.2 The grounds for the Order made by AAT were that:

    “For an unknown period up until on or around 18 February 2020, whilst a full member of AAT, [Mr James] provided self-employed accountancy services to the public without being registered or licensed to do so or approved as being exempt from holding a licence.”

    1.3 Consequent upon the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, Mr James is in breach of:

    a) rule 2.1, in that Mr James failed to avoid any action which discredits the profession;

    b) rule 2.6.3, in that Mr James conducted himself in a manner which was unbefitting and/or unlawful and/or illegal which tends to bring discredit upon a member and/or which may harm the standing of the profession and/or the ATT.

    Charge 2
    Mr James failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at the ATT in writing of the disciplinary action taken against him by the AAT or his expulsion from AAT within two months of the date of such action, as required by rule 2.14.2, or at all.

    Charge 3
    Contrary to rule 2.13.2, Mr James failed to reply to correspondence from the TDB

    The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Mr James be expelled from membership of ATT

    It was ordered that Mr James pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £1,686.85.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here

    Mr Simon Olver

    At a meeting on 25 May 2022, the Interim Orders Panel of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Simon Olver of Reigate, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, should be suspended from membership of CIOT until such time as the Disciplinary Tribunal has determined whether any charges arising from the complaints against him have been proved, or until an Interim Orders panel or a Disciplinary Tribunal orders otherwise.

    Mr John O’Leary

    At its hearing on 7 April 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr John O’Leary of Aldershot, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of the following charges, namely that:

    In breach of rules 2.4.1 and 5.1.1 of the PRPG 2018, he:

    (a) carried out his work without proper regard for the technical and professional standards expected, and

    (b) failed to exercise reasonable skill and care when acting for his

    The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that the charges against Mr O’Leary rest on file for a period of 2 years

    It was ordered that Mr O’Leary pay compensation of £213.87 to his client and that he pay £4,000 towards the TDB’s costs.

     

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Ms Jill Woodcock

    At its hearing on 2 March 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Jill Woodcock of Liverpool, a student member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of the following charges, namely that she: 

    1. Failed to carry out her work with proper regard for the professional standards expected; and/or
    2. Failed to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT;
    3. Failed to take due care in her professional conduct and professional dealings;
    4. Performed the duties of her employment improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely as to be likely to bring discredit to herself, to the CIOT or to the tax profession.
    5. failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without reasonable delay or at all and failed to provide information requested by the TDB.

    The Tribunal determined that Ms Woodcock be censured and pay costs in the sum of £5,440.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr James Guest

    At its hearing on 17 January 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr James Guest of Manchester, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of the following charges, namely that he:

     

    1. failed to inform the Head of Professional Standards of CIOT in the required form within 2 months that he was the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England & Wales (‘ICAEW’) on 27 February 2018.
    2. Acted dishonestly in failing to declare that he had been the subject of disciplinary action by a professional body, employer or regulatory authority when completing his 2019 Annual Return.
    3. was not straightforward in all his professional and business relationships in that he failed to provide information requested by the new accountants of a former client in a timely manner.
    4. In his conduct towards a former client, failed to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT, conducted himself in an unbefitting manner, and performed his work improperly.
    5. provided a document which purported to be professional clearance to the new accountants of a former client that was not in the form required.
    6. failed to ensure that his company, JA Guest Ltd, was registered for anti-money laundering supervision by the CIOT in that he has failed to provide CIOT with a DBS certificate.

     

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Guest be expelled from membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £5,302.50.

     

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Marc Andrew Hackney

    At its hearing on 13 September 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Marc Hackney of Hull, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of unbefitting conduct in that he had been convicted on indictment on 28 February 2020 for (i) Fraud by abuse of position and (ii) Forgery, for which he had received a two year suspended sentence with a requirement to undertake 300 hours of community service.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Hackney be expelled from membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £1,250.

     

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Ms Magdalena Durma

    At its meeting on 13 September 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Magdalena Durma of Newton Abbot, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that she acted dishonestly in colluding with another student when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Ms Durma:
    1. be removed from the ATT student register
    2. pay costs of £1,361

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Ms Shalini Renumakula

    At its meeting on 13 September 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Shalini Renumakula of Swindon, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that she acted dishonestly in colluding with another student when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Ms Renumakula:
    1. be removed from the ATT student register
    2. pay £1,000 towards the costs of the TDB. 

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Rakib Miah

    At its meeting on 13 September 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Rakib Miah of Tottenham, London, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he acted dishonestly in colluding with another student when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Miah:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 2 years
    3. pay £100 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Ms Nikita Choudhury

    At its meeting on 13 September 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Nikita Choudhury of Luton, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that she acted dishonestly in colluding with another student when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Ms Choudhury:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 2 years
    3. pay £1000 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Pradeep Murthy

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Pradeep Murthy of Karnataka, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Murthy:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 3.5 years
    3. pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Uma Shankar

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Uma Shankar of Bangalore, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Shankar:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 3.5 years
    3. pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Prabhuprasan Rath

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Prabhuprasan Rath of Odisha, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Rath:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 3 years
    3. pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Shubhransu Patel

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Shubhransu Patel of Bangalore, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Patel:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 3 years
    3. pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Sai Narendra

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Sai Narendra of Karnataka, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Narendra:
    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 3.5 years
    3. pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Avish Kumar

    At its meeting on 21 June 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Avish Kumar of Puttur, India, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG) in that he dishonestly collaborated with others and/or copied answers from a study text when sitting a professional examination.

     

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Kumar:

    1. be suspended from the ATT student register for a period of 2 years
    2. be prohibited from sitting any further ATT examinations for a period of 4 years

     pay £550 towards the costs of the TDB. 

     

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Kevin James

    At a meeting on 22 June 2021, the Interim Orders Panel of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered a complaint raised against Mr. Kevin James of St. Austell, a member of The Association of Taxation Technicians. 

    The complaint was that on or about 26 May 2020 the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT) made a finding against Mr. James to the effect that he had breached the AAT’s Code of Ethics, and made an order expelling him from the AAT for a period of three years. 

    The Panel ordered that Mr. James be suspended from membership of the ATT until such time as the Disciplinary Tribunal has considered the complaint that has been made against him. He was ordered to pay the TDB’s costs.

     

    Mr Thomas Byng

    At its hearing on 23 April 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered a complaint raised against  Mr Thomas Byng of Hertford, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal found the following Charge proved against Mr Byng:

    1. In a settlement order with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (‘ICAEW’) published on 20 February 2020 Mr Byng admitted two complaints of dishonest conduct, and agreed to be excluded from membership of ICAEW. By reason of the fact and/or circumstances of his exclusion from ICAEW, Mr Byng:

             a. Failed to avoid any action that discredits the profession (rule 2.1);

             b. Conducted himself in an unbefitting manner, which tends to bring discredit upon himself, and/or may harm, the standing of the profession, and/or the CIOT (rule 2.6.3).

     The Tribunal determined that that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Byng be expelled from membership of CIOT and that he pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,045.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Ian Wadhams

    At its hearing on 23 April 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered a complaint raised against Mr Ian Wadhams of London, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation. 

    The Tribunal found the following Charges proved against Mr Wadhams: 

    Charge 1 – Provision of information to CIOT

    In breach of Rule 2.12.1 of the PRPG 2018, Mr Wadhams has: 

    (a) failed to provide information reasonably requested by the CIOT without unreasonable delay.

    (b) failed to reply to correspondence from the CIOT which requires a response without unreasonable delay.

    Charge 2 – Responding to correspondence from the TDB

    (c) In breach of Rule 2.13.2 of the PRPG 2018, Mr Wadhams has failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without unreasonable delay.

    The Tribunal determined that that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Wadhams be censured and that he pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £1,995. 

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr David Parker

    At hearings on 17 December 2020 and 13 January 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised by HMRC against Mr David Parker of Birmingham, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT). 

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Parker was guilty of the following Charges: 

    Charge 1  

    In breach of Rules 2.6.1 and/or 2.6.2 of the PRPG 2011, Mr Parker 

    1. (a Failed:  
    1. to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT and ATT as set out in the Laws of the CIOT and ATT; and/or  
    1. to take due care in his professional conduct; and/or  
    1. to take due care in his professional dealings; 

    (b) (i) Performed his professional work, or conducted his practice or business, or performed the duties of his employment improperly, inefficiently negligently 

    or incompletely to such an extent or on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or to the tax profession; and/or  

    (ii) breached the laws of the CIOT or ATT; and/or  

    (iii) conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner, including in a personal, private capacity, which tends to bring discredit upon him and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT.  

    Charge 2 (the “Disrepute Charge) 

    In breach of Rule 2.19 of the PCRT 2015, Mr Parker brought himself and his professional body into disrepute.  

     

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Parker should be censured. It was also ordered that he pay costs in the sum of £8,295.94. 

     

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Richard Bell

    At its hearing on 13 January 2021, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Richard Bell of Ipswich, a member of The Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT). 

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Bell was guilty of the following Charges: 

     

    Charge 1 (the “Renewal Registration Charge 2018 / 2019”) 

    In breach of his obligations under Regulation 5.3(a) MLR 2007, Rules 2.8.1 and / or 2.11 PRPG 2011, and / or Rules 2.10.1, 2.10.2 and / or 2.12.1 PRPG 2018, Mr Bell failed to provide a copy of his DBS (criminal history check) certificate along with his application for AML registration for the year 2018 / 2019. 

     

    Charge 2 (the “Correspondence Charge”) 

    In breach of his obligations under Rules 2.12.1, 2.13.2 and / or 2.13.3 PRPG 2018, Mr Bell  

    failed to respond to correspondence from the ATT and / or the TBD without unreasonable delay. 

     

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Bell should be suspended from membership of ATT until such time as he has supplied ATT with a clear DBS certificate. It was also ordered that he pay costs in the sum of £4,118.15. 

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Peter Findlay

    At its hearing on 20 November 2020 the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised by two clients of Mr Peter Findlay of Sidmouth, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Findlay was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2011 and 2018 in that he acted without the required level of integrity and/or professional behaviour in:

    (a) failing to ensure his client’s money was properly accounted for and/or maintained separately;

    (b) withdrawing money from a client account without proper authorisation by the client;

    (c) failing to maintain records to show clearly the money which was received on account of his clients and details of any other money dealt with by him through the client account;

    (d) failing to act in an honest manner in his professional work;

    (e) acting in a way that was likely to bring discredit to himself the profession, the CIOT and the ATT;

    (f) failing to provide a letter of disengagement which the Rules strongly advise a member should provide when ceasing to act for a client;

    (g) failing to provide necessary assistance and/or documentation in order to facilitate a handover from himself to a client when she was trying to engage the services of a new tax advisor.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Findlay be expelled from membership of the CIOT and the ATT and that he pay costs in the sum of £7,722.60.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Daniel Shaw

    At its hearing on 19 August 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Daniel Shaw of Brighton, a student member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal found the following Charges proved against Mr Shaw:

    1.1 On 16/01/2019 Mr Shaw made a false representation to his employer by sending an email containing a forged statement of examination results, which:

    (a) represented that he passed his examination in Awareness sat in November 2018, when he had not;

    (b) represented that his mark for his examination in Taxation of Major Corporates sat in November 2018 was ‘46’, when in fact it was ‘41’.

    1.2 At the time of sending the email referred to in charge 1.1, Mr Shaw knew that he was making a false representation.

    1.3 On or before 16/01/2019 Mr Shaw created the forged statement of examination results referred to in Charge 1.1.

    1.4 Mr Shaw acted in breach of rule 2.1 and 2.2.1 (integrity) in that his making of the false statement and/or creating the forged statement of examination results was dishonest.

    1.5 Mr Shaw acted in breach of rule 2.1 and 2.6.3 in that:

    (a) his actions discredit the profession;

    (b) he conducted his professional work and/or the duties of his employment improperly to such an extent as to be likely to bring discredit on himself, the CIOT, or to the tax profession.

    Charge 2

    2.1 Mr Shaw failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without unreasonable delay or at all.

    The Tribunal determined that that the appropriate sanction was a recommendation that Mr Shaw be removed from CIOT’s student register and that he pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £4,356.65.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Steven Heath

    At its hearing on 4 August 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Steven Heath of Plymouth, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal found the following Charges proved against Mr Heath:

    Charge 1 (professional behaviour)

    1.1. In breach of rules 2.1, 2.6.2 and / or 2.6.3 PRPG 2011, and / or rules 2.1, 2.6.3 and / or 2.6.4 PRPG 2018, Mr Heath acted without the required level of professional competence and due care in that he:
    (a) Performed his professional work, or conducted his practice or business relationships, or performed the duties of his employment improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely to such an extent or on such a number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or to the tax profession.

    Charge 2 (ceasing to act)

    2.1 In in breach of rules 2.1, 2.6.3 and / or 10.1.3 PRPG 2018, Mr Heath acted without the required level of professional behaviour in that:
    (a) Mr Heath performed his professional work, or conducted his practice or business relationships, or performed the duties of his employment improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely to such an extent on such a number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or ATT or to the tax profession;
    (b) Mr Heath continued to act without taking reasonable steps to notify the client that he was no longer acting and without following the strong recommendation that before ceasing to act a member should notify the client in writing that they are no longer acting and address the following in their letter of disengagement:
    (i) A summary of services provided up to the date of ceasing to act;
    (ii) A note of any outstanding matters that either the ex-client or the new advisors would need to address;
    (iii) Details of any impending deadlines and the action required;
    (iv) A member’s willingness or otherwise to assist the new advisors to resolve outstanding issues with HMRC or others;
    (v) A member’s willingness or otherwise to provide copy papers to the new advisors;
    (vi) Details of any outstanding fees;
    (vii) A note indicating whether a member or their successor was to advise HMRC of the change.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Heath be censured and pay costs in the sum of £5,299.35.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr Christopher Bugden

    At its hearing on 12 June 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered a complaint made by CIOT about Mr Christopher Bugden of Albourne, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal found the following Charges against Mr Bugden to be proved:

    Charge 1

    1.1 In breach of rule 2.10.1 Mr Bugden did not inform the CIOT promptly or at all of any or all of the following instances of disciplinary action begun against him:
    (a) On 11 October 2013, a tribunal of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEW”) found proved both heads of a complaint against Mr Bugden. The tribunal imposed a severe reprimand on Mr Bugden and ordered him to pay a fine of £20,000 and costs of £28,000.
    (b) On 15 August 2018, a tribunal of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the ICAEW found proved parts 1b and 3 of a complaint against Mr Bugden. The tribunal imposed a reprimand on Mr Bugden, and ordered him to pay a fine of £3,000 and costs of £10,000.
    1.2 . [Charge found not proved]
    1.3 [Charge found not proved]

    Charge 2

    2.1 By virtue of the fact and circumstances of the disciplinary action outlined at paragraph 1.1(b) above, Mr Bugden:
    (a) failed to avoid any action that discredits the profession, contrary to rule 2.1; and/or
    (b) brought the CIOT into disrepute, contrary to rule 1.7.

    Charge 3

    3.1 At a hearing of a TDB Interim Order Panel on 6 December 2019 Mr Bugden made an inaccurate statement in that he informed the panel that he had paid the fines imposed by the ICAEW and that “all [his] financial obligations with ICAEW” had been “cleared”, when, as of 6 December 2019, of the £3,000 fine and costs of £10,000 imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal on 15 August 2018, only £2,170 had been repaid. This statement was made dishonestly, in breach of rule 2.1 and 2.2.1, in that Mr Bugden knew at the time of making it that it was inaccurate.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Bugden be suspended from membership of CIOT for a period of 12 months, and that he pay costs in the sum of £3,349.92.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    Mr David Hannah – Cornerstone Tax Advisors

    At hearings on 5 and 6 February 2020, and meetings on 17 February and 17 March 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints brought against Mr David Hannah (Cornerstone Tax Advisors) of Market Harborough, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    Mr Hannah (Cornerstone Tax Advisors) faced the following Charges:

    Charge 1
    In contravention of rules 5.6.1 to 5.6.3 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006, Cornerstone Tax Advisors failed to adequately set out and describe in sufficient detail the potential routes and means challenge to the a tax avoidance scheme by HMRC, including the proper interpretation of s.45 and the use of s.75A of the Finance Act 2003. 

    Charge 2
    In contravention of rules 5.6.1 to 5.6.3 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006, Cornerstone Tax Advisors failed to highlight the fact that the said scheme had been expressly targeted by HMRC with the introduction of s.75A as was apparent from both the Pre-Budget Report (PBRN 17) and HMRC’s Technical  Note (both being released on 6 December 2006).

    Charge 3
    In contravention of rules 5.6.1 to 5.6.3 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006, Cornerstone Tax Advisors failed to properly assess and communicate in their letter of 3 September 2007 the risk of a successful challenge by HMRC. In particular, to describe such a risk as a “low probability” was not an assessment that any reasonable tax advisor could have reached in the circumstances.

    The Tribunal found all three charges proved, and determined that Mr Hannah be censured, pay compensation of £5,000 to the complainant, pay a fine of £5,000, and pay costs in the sum of £49,013.12

    An application to appeal was rejected.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    At its hearings on 12 December 2019 and 28 February 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised by HMRC in relation to Mr Ray Davis of Lyndhurst, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    Mr Davis admitted (inter alia) charges that he had:

    1. failed to be either straightforward or honest and to act honestly and in good faith in his dealings with HMRC in that he had:
      a. Prepared and submitted self-assessment tax returns on behalf of clients that included claims for EIS and SEIS relief when he knew that those reliefs were not available to be claimed by those clients
      b. Acted dishonestly when preparing and submitting a VAT return that deliberately understated the VAT liability for his client
      c. Acted dishonestly when preparing and submitting a VAT return that included a claim for input tax on services provided over a period during which he knew that the client was not registered for VAT
      d. Failed to cooperate fully with HMRC’s investigation
    2. failed to be straightforward and honest in his professional and business relationships
    3. failed to uphold the standards of CIOT and ATT
    4. brought himself and his professional body into disrepute.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Davis be expelled from membership of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, pay a fine of £20,000, and pay costs in the sum of £12,836.95.

    An appeal against the fine was rejected.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    At its hearing on 27 February 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mrs Theresa Fox of Etchingham, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of Rules 2.1 and 2.6.3 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (PRPG)  in having in her possession during an examination materials that were not permitted to be in the examination room.

    The Tribunal determined that Mrs Fox be warned as to her future conduct and pay costs in the limited sum of £1,000.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    At its hearings on 25 February and 10 March 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered a complaint raised by a client of Mr Andrew Scott of Hungerford, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Scott was guilty of breaches of Rule 5.6.2 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006 and Rule 2.17 of the 2004 edition of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation (PCRT) in that, in 2007, he:

    (a) did not advise his client as to the risks of a tax avoidance scheme, failed to communicate clearly, in writing, that he was not giving tax advice as to the risks inherent in the scheme, and to expressly disclaim any responsibility in this respect, in breach of rule 5.6.2 of the PRPG

    (b) failed to consider carefully the merits of arrangements which may be considered artificial by the tax authority, in the light of his client’s wider interests, in breach of rule 2.17 of the 2004 edition of the PCRT.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Scott be censured and pay costs in the sum of £36,325.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    At its hearing on 19 December 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Spencer Hicks of Truro, a member of The Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT).

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Hicks was guilty of the following Charges:

    Charge 1 (The “Provision of Information Charge”)

    In breach of Rules 2.8, 2.9 and/or 2.11 of the PRPG 2011, Mr Hicks:

    (a) Failed to provide such information as was reasonably requested by the CIOT and ATT as a member without unreasonable delay, and failed to reply to correspondence from the CIOT and ATT which required a response without an unreasonable delay

    (b) Having been subject to the disciplinary processes of the TDB, Mr Hicks

    (i) failed to comply with an order from the TDB, including orders in respect of costs and fines, and/or

    (ii) failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without delay and/or

    (iii) failed to respond to correspondence or to comply with an order from the TDB;

    (c) Failed to comply with Anti Money Laundering legislation.

    Charge 2 (The “Failure to Comply or Respond Charge”)

    In breach of Rule 2.13 of the PRPG 2018, Mr Hicks:

    (a) Failed to comply with an order from the TDB, including orders in respect of costs and fines;

    (b) Failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without unreasonable delay.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Hicks should be suspended from membership of ATT for a period of 12 months with effect from 19 December 2019 and pay a fine of £200. It also ordered that he pay costs in the sum of £1,995.35.

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 19 December 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Gurgyan Kaley of Gerrards Cross, a student member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

     

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Kaley was guilty of the following Charges:

     

    Charge 1 (The “PRPG Integrity and Professional Behaviour Charge”)

    In breach of Rules 2.1, 2.2.2, and/or 2.6.2 of the PRPG 2011, Mr Kaley:

    • Failed to be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships;
    • Engaged in or was party to illegal activity;
    • (i) Performed his professional work, or conducted his practice or business relationships, or performed the duties of his employment improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely to such an extent or on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or to the tax profession; and/or (ii) breached the Laws of the CIOT or ATT.

    In that:

    • Mr Kaley is a CIOT student member. He is an employee of Deloitte and a qualified ICAEW accountant.
    • On a number of occasions over a considerable period of time, and in respect of substantial sums of money, Mr Kaley falsified claims against his employer for reimbursement of costs which he had not in fact incurred.
    • Following discovery of those actions by his employer, a trial took place at which Mr Kaley pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, two counts of fraud by abuse of position.
    • On 13 May 2019, before Inner London Crown Court, Mr Kaley was convicted of two offences of fraud by abuse of position.
    • He was sentenced to 4 months and 24 months imprisonment (suspended for 24 months), a £75,000 compensation order, 300 days’ unpaid work, electronic monitoring and 10 days’ Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.
    • The conviction was covered by the press.

     

                Charge 2 (The “Professional Behaviour Charge”)

    In breach of Rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG 2018, Mr Kaley failed to notify the CIOT in writing within two months if charged with or convicted of a criminal offence.

     

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 6 December 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised against Mr Raja Bains of West Bromwich, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.
    The Tribunal determined that Mr Bains was guilty of breaches of Rules 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.5.1 to 2.5.3, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 13.7.1 of the PRPG 2011 and of Rules 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.5.1 to 2.5.3, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, and 11.5.1 of the PRPG 2018 in that:

    1.1. On one or more occasions between 28 October 2018 and 3 February 2019 he sent emails (“the emails”) from his work email address to his personal email address containing information that was:
    (a) acquired in the course of his employment;
    (b) confidential to his employer; and/or
    (c) confidential to his employer’s clients.

    1.2. He sent the emails without the consent of his employer and where relevant their client.

    1.3. He breached paragraph 26.1 of his contract of employment by sending the emails.

    1.4. He used the resources of his employer in sending the emails in that the information was sent from an email address belonging to his employer.

    1.5. At the time of sending the emails, he:
    (a) knew that he was sending the emails and of their contents;
    (b) knew that he did not have the consent of his employer and where relevant their client to send the emails;
    (c) knew or suspected that his employer would not, if asked, consent to his sending the emails;
    (d) knew or suspected that sending the emails was in breach of his contract of employment;
    (e) knew that he was using the resources of his employer for his own advantage; and/or
    (f) was intending by sending the emails to be in a position to use the information within them if the opportunity arose to do so, thereby obtaining an advantage for himself.

    1.6. As a result of your actions at 1.1 to 1.5 he:
    (a) Acted dishonestly, contrary to rule 2.2.1 [PRPG 2011 and 2018];
    (b) Acted without integrity, contrary to rule 2.1 [PRPG 2011 and 2018];
    (c) Breached rules 2.5.1 to 2.5.3 [PRPG 2011] and rules 2.5.1 to 2.5.2 [PRG 2018];
    (d) Breached rule 2.6.2 [PRPG 2011] and rule 2.6.3 [PRPG 2018].

    2.1 By sending the emails he did not comply with Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 in that:
    (a) The emails contained personal data (defined in article 4);
    (b) The personal data was ‘processed’ (defined in article 4)
    (c) The personal data was not processed lawfully (as required by article 5) in that none of the bases for lawful processing (as defined in article 6) applied.

    2.2 As a result of paragraph 2.1, he breached rule 13.7.1 [PRPG 2011] and rules 2.5.3 and 11.6 [PRPG 2018].

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Bains be expelled from membership of The Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £4,924.12.

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 25 October 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mrs Emma Cole of Anglesey, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 and 2018 (PRPG) in that:

    1. She failed to inform the ATT promptly of the fact that on 9 November 2017 an order by consent was made between her and the AAT, in breach of Rule 2.10.1 of the PRPG 2011.
    2. She failed to inform the ATT promptly of the matter specified at 1 in breach of Rule 2.1 (professional behaviour) of the PRPG 2011 in that it was an action which brings discredit on the profession.
    3. She failed to respond within 30 days or at all to correspondence from the TDB dated 19 February 2019, in breach of Rules 2.13.2 of the PRPG 2018.

    The Tribunal determined that Mrs Cole be issued with a warning as to her future conduct and pay costs in the sum of £2,383.42.

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 25 September 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered complaints raised by four separate clients of Mr Philip Atherton of Littlehampton, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Atherton was guilty of breaches of Rules 1.6, 1.7, 2.4.1, 2.6.1 and/or 2.6.2 of the PRPG 2011 and/or Rules 1.6, 1.7, 2.4.1, 2.6.2 and/or 2.6.3 of the PRPG 2018, in that he:

    (a)        Failed to act with reasonable care and skill, honesty, integrity, impartiality and professionalism;

    (b)       Acted act in such a way as to bring the CIOT into disrepute, or in a way which would harm the reputation or standing of CIOT;

    (c)        Failed to carry out his professional work with proper regard for the technical and professional standards expected;

    (d)       Failed:
    (i) to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT and ATT as set out in the Laws of the CIOT and ATT; and/or
    (ii) to take due care in his professional conduct; and/or (iii) to take due care in his professional dealing;

    (e)        (i) Performed his professional work, or conducted his practice or business relationships, or performed the duties of his employment improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely to such an extent or on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or to the tax profession; and/or
    (ii) breached the Laws of the CIOT or ATT; and/or
    (iii) conduct himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner, including in a personal, private capacity, which tends to bring discredit upon him and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Atherton be expelled from membership of The Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £14,894.58.

    A link to the decision of the Tribunal can be found here.

    At its hearing on 25 June 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Andrew Passer of Stanmore, a member of The Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of a number of charges including failing to notify The Association of Taxation Technicians when notified of disciplinary action and/or regulatory action begun against him by another professional body or regulator on three separate occasions.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Passer be expelled from membership of The Association of Taxation Technicians and pay costs in the sum of £10,000.

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 9 January 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Phillip Levi, a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of (1) engaging in illegal activity, (2) acting in a way that brought him and his professional body into disrepute, and (3) engaging in conduct that tended to bring discredit upon him and/or tended to harm the standing of the taxation profession and/or the CIOT, following convictions on 30 June 2015 and on 20 July 2018. For the latter conviction Mr Levi had been sentenced to a term of 11 years 3 months imprisonment.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Levi be expelled from membership of the The Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £7,693.13.

    An appeal against the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal was rejected by the Disciplinary Assessor.

    A link to the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal can be found here

    At its hearing on 29 January 2019, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Michael Rowlands of Bristol, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of breaches of Rules 2.2.1 and 2.6.1 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (PRPG) in;

    1. Having acted dishonestly in stating to his employer that he had passed an ATT Personal Taxation exam sat in May 2017 when he knew he had not.
    2. Making false representations to his employer that he had passed an ATT VAT exam sat in November 2017 in that he represented that an email recording his having passed the exam existed
    3. Providing to his employer a forged document purporting to be a copy of an email from the ATT to him confirming that he had passed the exam.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Rowlands be excluded from membership of ATT and pay costs in the sum of £3,472.49.

    A link to the full decision of the Tribunal can be found here:

    At its hearing on 16 November 2018, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Jonathan Vowles of Cranfield, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of (1) breaches of Rule 2.4.1 in that he failed to carry out his professional work with proper regard to the technical and professional standards expected, and undertook professional work he was not competent to perform without having obtained appropriate advice or assistance to ensure the work was properly completed; (2) in breach of Rule 5.1.1 in that he failed to exercise due skill and care when acting for his client; (3) in breach of Rule 5.2.2 in that he failed to advise only within the scope of his professional competence and within the scope of the terms of his engagement; and (4) in breach of Rule 2.9.2 in that he failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without delay. The Tribunal determined that Mr Vowles be censured and ordered him to pay compensation of £5,000 to the complainants. It also ordered that he pay costs in the sum of £8,982.42.

    The full decision can be found here.

    At its hearing on 15 October 2018, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Tripti Gurung of Welling, a student member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of  breaches of Rules 2.1 and 2.6.1 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (PRPG)  in having in her possession, and using, during an examination a book that was not permitted to be in the examination room.

    The Tribunal determined that Ms Guring be censured and pay costs in the sum of £2,100.

    A link to the full decision can be found here

    At its hearings on 18 May and 10 July 2018, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr David Conlan of Daventry, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of  (1) breaches of Rules 2.1, 2.2.4, 7.7.3, 7.7.4, 7.7.5 and/or 7.7.7 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (PRPG)  in relation to the handling of client money;  (2) breaches of Rules 2.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, of the PRPG in respect of his professional behaviour; and (3) of breaches of Rules 2.1 and/or 2.9.2 of the PRPG, in that he failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without delay.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Conlan be expelled from membership of The Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £10,970.45.

    The full decision can be found here

    At a hearing on 23 June 2017, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mrs Joanna Webb of Droitwich, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of provisions of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) in that she: (i) failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB (ii) failed to notify the CIOT and the TDB of regulatory action taken against her by The Institute of Financial Accountants, and (iii) was guilty of discreditable and disreputable conduct having been found guilty of professional misconduct by The Institute of Financial Accountants and having been expelled from that body.

    The Tribunal ordered that Mrs Webb be expelled from membership of the CIOT, and pay costs in the sum of £6,080.24.

    The full decision can be found here

    At a meeting on 21 October 2018, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr John Anthony Mehigan, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty on his admission of breaches of the following Rules of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (PRPG) namely:

    1. Rule 2.7.1, in that he had failed to protect his clients and/or his practice and/or himself in that between 2005 and 2013 he did not have adequate PII cover when carrying out his professional work. For this breach, The Tribunal ordered that Mr Mehigan be expelled from membership of CIOT.

    2. Rule 2.10.1 in that he failed to notify the CIOT that he had been notified of disciplinary and/or regulatory action begun against him by the ICAEW. For this breach, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Mehigan be censured.

    3. Rule 1.7 (acting in such a way as to bring the CIOT into disrepute and/or in a way which would harm the reputation of the CIOT); Rule 2.6.1 (failing to take due care in his conduct, to take due care in all his professional dealings and/or to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT; Rule 2.6.2 (having been sanctioned by the FRC, conducting his business relationships improperly, inefficiently, or incompletely to such an extent or on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT or to members or any part of the membership or to the tax profession; and Rule 2.6.2 in that he breached the laws of the CIOT.

    For this breach the Tribunal ordered that Mr Mehigan pay a fine of £5,000. The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Mehigan pay costs in the sum of £6,044.06. A link to the full decision of the Tribunal can be found here: here

    At its hearing on 2 November 2016, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Stephen Coleclough, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of illegal and unbefitting conduct in that he had been convicted on indictment on 25 February 2016 for 8 offences for which he had been sentenced on 27 April 2016 to 14 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Coleclough be expelled from membership of the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £4,304.33.

    The full decision can be found here

    At its hearing on 2 November 2016, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Andrew Callowhill of Westcliffe-on-Sea, a member of The Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of (i) failing to comply with Money Laundering legislation, regulations and guidance (ii) failing to respond to correspondence from The Association of Taxation Technicians, The Chartered Institute of Taxation, and the TDB, and (ii) holding himself out as a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation when no longer a member.

    The Tribunal determined that Mr Callowhill be expelled from membership of The Association of Taxation Technicians and pay costs in the sum of £5,410.13.

    The full decision can be found here

    At its hearing on 28 June 2016, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Isabela Kopalska of Cardiff, a student member of The Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of provisions of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) in that she: (i) carried out work for clients contrary to the instructions of her employer

    (ii) carried out work for third parties contrary to the instructions of her employer and obtained such work in an unprofessional manner

    (iii) carried out work without having professional indemnity insurance

    (iv) used her employer’s facilities when carrying out unauthorized work

    The Tribunal ordered that Ms Kopalska be expelled from membership of the ATT, pay compensation of £5,000 to her former employer, and pay costs in the sum of £10,000.

    The full decision can be found here

    At its hearing on 17 June 2016, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Terence Potter of Monaco, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of a provision of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) in that he engaged in illegal activity, having been convicted on 17 September 2015 on indictment of four counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. Mr Potter received a sentence of imprisonment for 8 years.

    Mr Potter was also found to be in breach of the PRPG in that he failed to inform the CIOT of his conviction.

    The Tribunal ordered that Mr Potter be expelled from membership of the CIOT and pay costs in the sum of £2,417.93.

    The full decision can be found here

    At its hearing on 1 April 2016, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Darren Moysey of Paignton, Devon, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of a provision of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) in that he was engaged in and/or was party to illegal activity, having been convicted on 13 March 2015 on indictment of fraud by abuse of position. Mr Moysey received a sentence of imprisonment for 8 months, suspended for 18 months.

    Mr Moysey was also found to be in breach of the PRPG in that he failed to inform the ATT promptly of his conviction.

    The Tribunal ordered that Mr Moysey be expelled from membership of the ATT and pay costs in the sum of £2,862.83.

    The full decision can be found here

    At its hearing on20th January 2015, the Disciplinary Tribunal determined that Mr Kevin Blyth of Great Glen, Leics, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of one provision of ATT Regulations and five provisions of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG).

    The Tribunal found that he had failed to complete and return his ATT Annual Return Form for 2013 and had failed to respond to letters and emails from ATT. He had also failed to respond to various letters and telephone calls from the Taxation Disciplinary Board (TDB). The Tribunal found that his failures to complete his Annual Return Form and respond to communications from the ATT and TDB constituted a lack of courtesy and consideration towards his professional body.

    The Tribunal noted that Mr Blyth had been the subject of previous disciplinary action in that in 2010 he had been found to be in breach of the PRPG for failure to reply to ATT and TDB communications. The Tribunal ordered that Mr Blyth be expelled from membership of the ATT and he was also ordered to pay costs in the sum of £3,290.

    At its hearing on 13 October 2014, the Disciplinary Tribunal determined that Mr Akeel Mirza of Coventry, a student member of the CIOT, was in breach of four provisions of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines of the CIOT (PRPG). He was found to have breached the fundamental principle of integrity by committing offences involving dishonesty, for which he had been convicted in September 2013. He had also failed to inform the CIOT of his being charged with financial crimes and his subsequent conviction, and had failed to inform the CIOT that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, of which he was also a member, had begun disciplinary action against him. Mr Mirza had pleaded guilty to five offences of dishonestly making false representations for gain and one count of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue at Warwick Crown Court in September 2013, for which he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The offences involved submitting falsified company tax returns and self-assessment returns so as to generate tax refunds, which he retained for himself. The Tribunal determined that the only appropriate sanction was expulsion from student membership of the CIOT. Mr Mirza was also ordered to pay costs of £2,542.

    At its hearing on 19 March 2014, the Disciplinary Tribunal found that Mrs Alison Stevens of Penzance, Cornwall, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of three provisions of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (PRPG) and had provided inadequate professional service. The Tribunal found that Mrs Stevens had breached the duty of care and had acted negligently in failing to carry out work for the complainant properly or at all; had provided the complainant with inadequate professional service; had failed to be courteous and considerate towards the complainant; and had failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB without delay.

    Mrs Stevens had been engaged to prepare the complainant’s tax returns for 2010/11 and 2011/12, but failed to file them, thereby resulting in penalties which he had to pay. She then failed to respond to correspondence from the complainant or to return papers relating to his tax affairs. Once the complaint was made, Mrs Stevens failed to respond to any correspondence from the TDB.

    The Tribunal considered that Mrs Stevens’ conduct and the continuing risk to the public were sufficiently serious as to require expulsion from membership of the CIOT. The Tribunal ordered Mrs Stevens to pay the complainant £1,400 by way of compensation for the penalties he had incurred through her failure to file his tax returns. The Tribunal also ordered her to pay costs in the sum of £2,688.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Top

    Any questions?

    Contact us