Forthcoming hearings

The articles in this section outline forthcoming hearings

 

The following cases are being heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board on 19 – 21 June by teleconference:

Member:    Mr David Hannah

Case ref. TDB/2021/11(a), TDB/2021/11(c) and TDB/2021/11(d)

Mr Hannah faces the following charges in relation to the following complaints:

Complaint 1 – Complaint by Mr and Mrs D

  1. The following allegations relate to a complaint brought by Mr and Mrs D.
  2. At the relevant time, Mr David Hannah was a director of Cornerstone Tax Ltd (“CTL”) and was a “Member in practice” within the meaning of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 with respect to the company on account of holding 5% or more of the equity capital (via Cornerstone Group International Ltd).
  3. CTL provided services, including tax planning and advice services from Milestone House, 18 Nursery Court, Kibworth Business Park, Kibworth, Leicestershire, LE8 0EX.
  4. As part of these services, Mr Hannah provided advice and planning in relation to schemes designed to avoid payment of Stamp Duty Land Tax (“SDLT”). This included an annuity based SDLT Mitigation Scheme known as “Hussey” (“the Scheme”).
  5. In or around July 2016, Mrs D was advised by Mr David Hannah of CTL to enter into the Scheme in relation to a property at ▐█████████████████████████.
  6. On or around 5th July 2016, Mrs D paid CTL £2,750 to establish the Scheme in relation to the ███████████ property.
  7. In or around 2017, HMRC commenced an inquiry into the Scheme, and CTL subsequently asked Mrs D to appoint them to deal with HMRC inquiries on her behalf.
  8. Save for a single letter dated 24 April 2017, neither Mr Hannah nor CTL kept Mrs D informed about the progress of the HMRC inquiry or their response to HMRC on behalf of Mrs D.
  9. On or around 22 March 2021, Mr and Mrs D were contacted directly by HMRC. HMRC challenged the validity of the Scheme and Mr and Mrs D decided to not contest this further before the First-tier Tribunal. Given the other case law in this area, this was a reasonable decision for them to take. As a result both now been required to make a payment to HMRC of £13,750 each, plus interest.
  10. As a result of the actions and omissions of Mr Hannah and/or CTL, Mr and Mrs D have suffered financial loss.

 

Charge 1

Mr Hannah failed to advise Mr and Mrs D appropriately about the risks of entering into the Scheme. In terms of the risks of entering the scheme, the letter of advice of 6 July 2016 gave inadequate risk warnings in relation to:

  1. Whether the TAAR in para 18 of Sch 2A to FA 2003 would apply. In particular, given that the arrangements were or were likely to be seen as “tax avoidance arrangements”, it is unclear on what basis CTL advised that para 18 would be disapplied by s.75A and in any event it ought to have warned that there was a material risk that it would not be.
  2. Whether s.75A would itself apply in any event. In particular for the same reasons given in Newton v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 688 (TC) at paras 151 to 172 (albeit concerning a similar but earlier scheme), there was a substantial risk that s.75A would apply.
  3. Assuming that the “annuity” involved in this planning was similar to that considered in Newton the letter ought to have highlighted the risk of whether the arrangements would have qualified as an annuity within the meaning of s.52 FA 2003.
  4. The tax investigation risk. In particular, the advice that the risk of HMRC seeking to challenge the planning was a “low one” was one which no reasonably competent tax advisor should have given in particular against the context of HMRC’s approach to sub-sale schemes (evidenced in the substantial changes introduced in FA 2013). Further the advice that a successful challenge was “a remote possibility” was again one which no reasonably competent tax advisor should have given.

 

The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 1.6, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, ,5.1.1, 5.3 and 5.6 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (“PRPG 2011”); and paragraphs 2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.12 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2014.

 

Charge 2

Mr Hannah failed to respond appropriately to the HMRC investigation into the Scheme or keep Mrs D updated about the HMRC investigation.

The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 1.6, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 5.1.1, 5.3 and 5.6 of the PRPG 2011, paragraphs 1.6, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 5.1.1, and 5.3.1 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018; and paragraphs 2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.12 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2014.

 

Charge 3

Mr Hannah and/or CTL have failed to respond adequately to the concerns raised by Mr and Mrs D and have subsequently refused to correspond with them about the matter.  Accordingly, Mr Hannah has:

  1. failed to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT; and
  2. failed in his duty:
    • to act towards his clients Mr and Mrs D, with professionalism;
    • not to act in such a way as to bring CIOT into disrepute.

 The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 1.7, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018; and paragraphs 2.1, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.12 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2014.

 

Complaint 2 – Complaint by HMRC and The Chartered Institute of Taxation

  1. The following charge relates to a complaint brought by the CIOT and HMRC. 
  1. On 30 May 2019, the following judgment of the First-tier Tribunal was released in the case of David Hannah and another v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 342 (TC), [2019] SFTD 976. This involved planning carried out by Mr Hannah and his wife at the time, Mrs Hodgson, for the purchase of the White House, Welford Road, Arnseby (“the Property”) which took place in 2011.
  1. The planning was found to have failed and at the same time penalties were imposed which were subsequently upheld by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. The penalties were upheld on the basis that there had been deliberate conduct by Mr Hannah when he filed form SDLT1 on 5 October 2011 which materially understated the consideration payable for the Property.
  1. At paragraph 64 of the First-tier Tribunal decision, Judge Nicholl stated:

           “Applying the meaning of “deliberate” as set out in a summary of First-tier Tribunal cases referred to in Carter v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 729 (TC) Mr Hannah knowingly provided HMRC with a document that contained an error with the intention that HMRC should rely upon it as an accurate document. The failure to notify the full chargeable consideration of £765,000 was an inaccuracy that led to an understatement of tax and it was deliberate on Mr Hannah’s part. The conditions for the imposition of the penalty under paragraph 1 schedule 24 on Mr Hannah were satisfied.”

  1. Mr Hannah’s subsequent appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal in the following decision [2021] UKUT 0022 (TCC). In particular, the Upper Tribunal stated (at paragraph 173)

           “In view of the primary facts found by the FTT (apart from its conclusion as to whether the inaccuracies were deliberate) and in view of the inference that could be drawn from Mr Hannah’s failure to give evidence, we consider that it was open to the FTT to reach the conclusion that the inaccuracies in this case were indeed deliberate.”

 

Charge 1

           By knowingly providing HMRC with a document that contained an error with the intention that HMRC should rely upon it as an accurate document, Mr Hannah failed to:

  1. act with integrity;
  2. uphold the professional standards of the CIOT as set out in the Laws of the CIOT.

 The above constituted breaches of paragraphs of Professional Rules and Practice Guidance 2011: 1.7, 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.6.1, and/or 2.6.2.

 

Complaint 3 – Complaint by Mr and Mrs L

  1. The following allegations relate to a complaint brought by Mr and Mrs L.
  2. At the relevant time, Mr David Hannah was a director of Cornerstone International Advisory Services Ltd and was a “Member in practice” within the meaning of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 with respect to the company on account of holding 5% or more of the equity capital. 
  1. The trading name of Cornerstone International Advisory Services Ltd was Cornerstone Tax Advisors (“CTA”).

 

  1. CTA ceased trading by 29 May 2015.
  2. In or around 4 June 2013, Mr and Mrs L engaged CTA, to provide tax planning and advice services (“Serenity 2”) relating to the purchase of a property at ███████████████████████. It is understood that Mr David Hannah had a lead role in developing Serenity 2 planning and in particular the standard form letter of advice in respect of Serenity 2.
  3. CTA sent a letter of advice dated 4 June 2013 to Mr and Mrs L. This included the following statement:

The tax risks involved are that HMRC may seek to litigate to challenge this strategy and that there is a possibility, albeit a low one, that they may be able to challenge successfully the strategy using the principles developed in the tax avoidance case of IRC v. Ramsay. Whilst this is a remote possibility I am duty bound to draw this to your attention.”

  1. On 16 July 2013, Mr and Mrs L paid a fee of £6,975 to CTA for the services provided under the engagement.
  2. As part of the service provided under the terms of the Engagement, CTA expressly undertook to set up a specialist Stamp Duty Land Tax Mitigation Policy in the name of Mr and Mrs L (“the Policy”).
  3. On 16 July 2013, Mr and Mrs L paid CTA £1,011 as premium for the Policy.
  4. Under the engagement, the express purpose of setting up the Policy, was to ensure that CTA’s fees would be refunded to Mr and Mrs L, in the event that HMRC successfully challenged Serenity 2.
  5. Despite repeated assurances from CTA, the HMRC successfully challenged Serenity 2. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) considered the Serenity 2 planning in Newton v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 688 (TC).
  6. On 20 January 2021, Mr and Mrs L paid £17,105 to the HMRC, being payment of the SDLT due and accumulated interest, as required by the HMRC.
  7. Mr and Mrs L subsequently became aware that the company providing the Policy had gone into administration.
  8. Mr and Mrs L were therefore unable to mitigate the payments that they were required to make to HMRC and have therefore suffered financial detriment of £9,000 as a result.
  9. In or around December 2020, Mr and Mrs L made a formal complaint to CTA.
  10. In or around May 2021, CTA informed Mrs and Mrs L that the organisation providing services under the terms of the Engagement was a different legal entity to CTA.

 

Charge 1

Mr Hannah failed to:

  1. adequately in the letter of advice set out and describe in sufficient detail the potential routes and means challenge to the Serenity 2 scheme by HMRC, including, whether the bond relied on in the planning was an “annuity”, the proper interpretation of s.45 and the use of s.75A of the Finance Act 2003.
  2. failed to properly assess and communicate in the letter of advice the risk of a successful challenge by HMRC. In particular, to describe such a risk as a “low” was not an assessment that any reasonable tax advisor could have reached in the circumstances.

The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 1.6, 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, ,5.1.1, 5.3 and 5.6 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2011 (“PRPG 2011”); and paragraphs 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.13 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2011.”

 

Charge 2

Mr Hannah has failed to ensure that the businesses of which he was a Director were conducted with honesty and integrity. In particular, Mr Hannah failed to ensure that the selling of the Serenity 2 scheme was done in a way which properly highlighted the risks to potential clients. Mr Hannah also failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the insurance policy taken out by CTA’s clients would be in a position to respond in the event of the failure of Serenity 2.

The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 1.7 and 2.6.2 of the PRPG 2011; and paragraphs 2.1 and 2.13 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2011.

 

Charge 3

In addition, based on the facts set out above, Mr Hannah has:

  1. failed to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT; and
  2. failed in his duty not to act in such a way as to bring CIOT into disrepute:

The above constituted breaches of paragraphs 2.6.2 of the PRPG 2011; and paragraphs 2.1 and 2.13 of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation 2011.

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 Alan Rodgers

At its hearing on 2 May 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Alan Rodgers of Weymouth, Dorset, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (as amended in 2021) (PRPG). He faced the following Charges:

Charge 1

1.1 Following a request from his client’s Trustee in Bankruptcy on 30 June 2022, Mr Rodgers failed to provide the following:

    1. The client’s tax return information;
    2. Bank Statements for the client’s company, Makin Changes Ltd;
    3. Details of whether the client had made any personal investments into Mayan Roofing Systems

1.2 Mr Rodgers failed to provide the information sought in Charge 1.1 when the request was repeated by the Trustee in Bankruptcy on 20 July 2022.

1.3 Mr Rodgers failed to provide the information that is the subject of charges 1.1 and 1.2, knowing that he was obligated to do so under section 312 and 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Charge 2

2.1 Following a request from his client’s Trustee in Bankruptcy on 8 October 2022, Mr Rodgers failed to produce his organisation’s complaints procedure.

Charge 3

3.1 Consequent upon the facts and matters set out in Charge 1 and/or Charge 2 above, Mr Rodgers was in breach of:

    1. Rule 2.2.1, in that he knowingly failed to provide relevant information
    2. Rule 2.6.3, in that he had:
      – Performed his professional work or conducted his business relationships improperly, inefficiently, negligently or incompletely to such an extent or on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, or to the CIOT or to the tax profession; and/or
      – Conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon a member and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT.
    3. Rule 11.3.1, in that Mr Rodgers received a request for information or documents from a third party, and should have either obtained his client’s permission or ensured that the request was legally enforceable and legitimately overrode client confidentiality.

The Tribunal found Charges 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 1.2, 1.3, 2, and 3 proved. ​

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal imposed a sanction of Censure on Mr. Rodgers​ to be effective for a period of five years. ​

The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Rodgers pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,733.

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

Mr Adam Hart

At its hearing on 16 April 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Adam Hart of Guernsey, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (as amended in 2021) (PRPG) as a consequence of his conviction on 22 August 2023 at Khon Kaen Provincial Court in Thailand following a guilty plea for the offence of negligence causing the death of another person. As a result of the conviction, Mr Hart was sentenced on 27 September 2023 to 1 year 6 months imprisonment suspended for two years.

The Tribunal found that Mr Hart was in breach of the following rules of the PRPG:

a. Rule 2.2.2 in that Mr Hart engaged in or was party to illegal activity;

b. Rule 2.6.3 in that Mr Hart conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful and/or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT.

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal imposed a sanction of censure on Mr. Hart to be effective for a period of three years.

The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Hart pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,493.

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

Mr Varnakulasingam Jegatheeswaran

At a hearing on 4 April 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Varnakulasingam Jegatheeswaran of North Harrow, Middlesex, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, had:

  1. between 1 June 2016 and January 2023 provided defined services which required AML Supervision; and
  2. failed to register for AML Supervision until January 2023 contrary to the PRPG 2018 and the ATT Anti-Money Laundering Scheme Rules 2017.

By virtue of the above, the Tribunal determined that Mr Jegatheeswaran was in breach of Rules 2.10.1 and/or 2.10.2 of the PRPG 2018 and/or the PCRT 2017 section 1.7

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Jegatheeswaran be censured and that he pay a fine of £2,000. It also ordered that he pay costs of £2,653.

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

Ms Jodie Hart

At a hearing on 4 April 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Jodie Hart of Gloucester, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, having been convicted at Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court for the offence of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit on 21 September 2022 for which she received a sentence of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 36 months and a fine of £162, had:

  1. engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG; and
  2. conducted herself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon herself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the ATT, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG; and
  3. failed to inform the ATT within the required notification period of two months, as set out in Rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG.

 

The Tribunal made an Order that Ms Hart be suspended from membership of ATT for a period of one month. It also ordered that she pay costs of £2,653.

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

Mr Thomas Parascandolo

At a hearing on 4 April 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Thomas Parascandolo of Nottingham, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, having been convicted at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court  on 18 May 2023 for the offence of driving a motor vehicle, namely an e-scooter, on 30 April 2023 with alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit on 21 September 2022 for which he received a sentence of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 16 months and a fine of £576, had:

  1. engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG; and
  2. conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Parascandolo receive a warning. It also ordered that he pay costs of £2,653.

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

Mr Dilip Patel

At its hearing on 27 March 2024, The Disciplinary Tribunal of The Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Dilip Patel of Reading, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (as amended in 2021) (PRPG) in that: 

  1. he had been subject to an order of the Investigation Committee of ICAEW on 4 January 2023 that he be severely reprimanded, fined £10,000 and pay costs of £6,190: and
  2. he had failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at CIOT within 2 months of 4 January 2023 of the regulatory action referred to above having been upheld against him by another professional body to which he belonged.

 The Tribunal found that Mr Patel had conducted himself in an unbefitting manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself and may harm the standing of the profession and CIOT contrary to Rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG and had failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at CIOT within 2 months contrary to Rule 2.14.2.

The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Patel be censured.

It was ordered that Mr Patel pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,506.

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

Ms Hannah Reason

At its hearing on 27 March 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Ms Hannah Reason of Highbridge, Somerset, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018 (as amended in 2021) (PRPG) in that:

1. having been convicted on or around November 2022 of offences of driving a vehicle when over the prescribed alcohol limit and driving without due care an attention on 24 June 2022 for which she received a fine and a 14-month driving ban,

a. she had engaged in illegal behaviour contrary to Rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG; and
b. she had conducted herself in an unbefitting, unlawful and/or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon herself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT and ATT, contrary to Rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

2. having been:

 

a) issued with a reprimanded by ICAEW for the same offence on 24 June 2022; and
b) subject to a reprimand for 2 years and a warning by AAT on 24 April 2023 for the same offence,

Ms Reason had conducted herself in an unbefitting, unlawful and/or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon herself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT and ATT, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Ms Reason be censured.

It was ordered that Ms Reason pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,410.

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

Mr Martin Smith

At its hearing on 14 February 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Martin Smith of East Sussex, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of the following rules of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018, namely:

  • Rule 2.7.1 in that he failed to maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance
  • Rule 2.10.2 in that he was in breach of Anti-Money Laundering registration requirements.

 

The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Smith be censured.

 

It was ordered that Mr Smith pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,350.

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

Mr James Clifford

At its hearing on 14 February 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr James Clifford of Gravely, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006, 2011 and 2018, in that:

  • he failed to maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance while providing taxation services as a sole practitioner:
  • he was in breach of Anti-Money Laundering registration requirements.

 

The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Clifford be censured.

 

It was ordered that Mr Clifford pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £2,350.

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

Mr Jiwan Verma

At a hearing on 1-2 February 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Jiwan Verma of Southall, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

Charge 1

1.1 On or around 10 June 2017 JV Accountants Ltd (“JVA”) submitted a set of unaudited accounts (“the accounts”) for A Ltd to Companies House in relation to the period ending 31 January 2017. The accounts were inaccurate and misleading, including in that the accounts gave the impression of significant business activity by A Ltd for the periods ending 31 January 2016 and 31 January 2017, including recording significant turnover, profit before taxation, assets, and shareholders’ funds;

(a) the accounts recorded the distribution of significant dividends;
(b) the accounts contained a report from JVA dated 8 June 2017 stating that the accounts were compiled from accounting records, information and explanations provided to JVA;
(c) the accounts contained a signed report dated 1 June 2017 from the Director purporting to relate to the business activity recorded in the accounts for the period ending 31 January 2017.
(d) Mr Verma prepared the accounts, or caused the accounts to be prepared, with the intention that the accounts would be presumed as being accurate by any third party reading them; and/or

1.2 Mr Verma

(a) prepared the accounts, or caused the accounts to be prepared, with the intention that the accounts would be presumed as being accurate by any third party reading them; and/or
(b) [Charge not proved]
(c) failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the preparation and/or submission of inaccurate and misleading accounts.

1.3 [Charge not proved]

1.4 Mr Verma’s actions at paragraphs 1.2(a), (b), and/or 1.3 were:

(a) dishonest and in breach of rules 2.1 (the fundamental principle of integrity) and 2.2.1;
(b) in breach of rule 2.1 (the fundamental principle of professional behaviour) and 2.6.2 in that he failed to avoid any action which discredits the profession, and/or performed his professional work improperly to such an extent as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, the CIOT, or to the members, or any part of the membership, or to the tax profession.

1.5. Mr Verma’s actions at paragraph 1.2(c) were:

(a) in breach of rule 2.6.1 in that he failed to take due care in his conduct or professional dealings;
(b) in breach of rule 5.1.1 in that he failed to act with reasonable skill and care;
(c) in breach of rule 2.1 (professional behaviour) and 2.6.2 in that he failed to avoid any action which discredits the profession and/or he performed his professional work or conducted his practice inefficiently or negligently to such an extent as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT, or to the members, or any part of the membership or to the tax profession.

The Tribunal made an Order that in relation to Charges 1.2(a) and (c) and Charge 1.4, Mr Verma be expelled from membership of CIOT, and that in relation to Charge 1.5 he be censured.

It also ordered that Mr Verma pay costs of £9,824.25.

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

Mr Ian Middleton

At a meeting on 29 February 2024, the Interim Orders Panel of the Taxation Disciplinary Board ordered that Mr Ian Middleton of Shrewsbury, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT), be suspended from membership of the ATT until such time as the Disciplinary Tribunal determines whether any charges arising from the complaints against him have been proved or until an Interim Orders Panel or Disciplinary Tribunal orders otherwise.

Mr Graeme Davis

At a hearing on 11 January 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Graeme Davis of London N21, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, having been subject to disciplinary action by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

  1. having conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner, which tends to bring discredit upon himself, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG;
  2. having failed to inform the Head of Professional Standards at the CIOT in writing of regulatory action having been taken against him by ICAEW within two months of 26 January 2022 in breach of rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Davis be censured. It also ordered that he pay costs of £3,443.

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

Mr Christopher Bugden

At a hearing on 11 January 2024, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Christopher Bugden of Hassocks, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, having been convicted on 9 June 2021 of an offence of driving a vehicle when in excess of the alcohol limit, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

  1. having engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG;
  2. having conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner, which tends to bring discredit upon himself, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG;
  3. having failed to inform the Head of Professional Standards at the CIOT in writing of his conviction within two months of 9 June 2021 in breach of rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Bugden be censured and that he pay a fine of £750.

It also ordered that Mr Bugden pay costs of £3,127.

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

Ms Alison Watson

At a hearing on 14 December 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board considered the following charges against Ms Alison Watson of Burnley, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, namely:

Charge 1

1.1 The Defendant was at all material times the principal and responsible individual of DSM CA Limited, Clitheroe (the “Firm”).

1.2 On 13 August 2020 the Audit Registration Committee (“ARC)” of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEW”) determined that the registration of the Firm as company auditor be withdrawn under audit regulation 7.03g and 7.03i of ICAEW’s Audit Regulations and Guidance on the basis of its failure to comply with conditions previously imposed by the ARC to submit the results of external hot file reviews within one month of their completion and its weaknesses in audit work. The Firm agreed to pay a regulatory penalty of £10,000.

1.3 The ARC also withdrew the responsible individual status of the Defendant.

1.4 By virtue of the disciplinary and/or regulatory action taken by ICAEW’s Audit Registration Committee in relation to the Defendant referred to in Charges 1.2 and/or 1.3 above, the Defendant has conducted herself in an unbefitting manner which tends to bring discredit upon herself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

Charge 2

On 26 March 2021, the Defendant was subject to a finding by ICAEW’s Review Committee that the Firm had:

(i) Failed to comply with previously imposed requirements for hot and cold file reviews in breach of AR 6.06.
(ii) Demonstrated serious and wide-ranging failures in the quality of its audit work in breach of AR 3.10

2.1 By reason of the finding at Charge 2.1, ICAEW‘s Review Committee ordered that:

(i) the audit registration of the Firm be withdrawn pursuant to regulations 7.03(g) and 7.03(i) of the Audit Regulations and Guidance on the basis that the Firm had failed repeatedly to comply with the condition imposed in 2017 to submit hot and cold file reviews to ICAEW.

(ii) The Responsible Individual status of the Defendant shall cease pursuant to regulation 4.08(f) of the Audit Regulations and Guidance.

(iii) the Firm shall pay costs to ICAEW of £7,560 within 30 days of notice of this decision being given to it.

2.3 By virtue of the disciplinary and/or regulatory action taken by ICAEW’s Review Committee in relation to the Defendant referred to in Charges 2.1 and/or 2.2 above, the Defendant has conducted herself in an unbefitting manner which tends to bring discredit upon herself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

Charge 3

3.1 In her 2020 annual return, submitted to CIOT on 17 January 2021, the Defendant responded to the question “Have you ever been the subject of disciplinary action by a professional body, employer or regulatory authority?” as follows:
“ICAEW audit penalty re not providing some hot file reviews following audit visit. This was due to a misunderstanding arising some 3 years ago. Hot file reviews have been provided to ICAEW since then. Penalty not contested”
3.2 In her 2021 Annual return, submitted to CIOT on 30 January 2022, the Defendant responded to the question “Have you ever been the subject of disciplinary action by a professional body, employer or regulatory authority?” with “Audit RI registration withdrawn in April 2021”.

3.3 The Defendant failed to notify the Head of Professional Standards at CIOT within 2 months of 13 August 2020 and/or of 26 March 2021 of the regulatory action referred to in Charges 1 and 2 having been upheld against her by another professional body to which she belonged contrary to rule 2.14.2.

The Tribunal found all the charges proved and made an Order that Ms Watson be censured. It also ordered that she pay costs of £2,755.

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

Mr Kelvin Kaliwoh

At a hearing on 31 August 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Kelvin Kaliwoh of Croydon, a Tax Pathway student of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

  1. having been convicted on 15 November 2021 of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, namely 87 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act
  2. having received a sentence of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 22 months and a fine of £487. Mr Kaliwoh was ordered to pay £320 prosecution costs and £47 victim surcharge.
  1. Consequent upon the said conviction and sentence, Mr Kaliwoh had engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG; and/or had conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Kaliwoh be censured. It also ordered that he pay costs of £2,832.

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

Mr Paul Dyer

At its hearing on 4 September 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Paul Dyer of Nottingham, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of the following rules of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2018, namely:

• Rule 2.10.1 in that Mr Dyer failed to comply with the UK’s AML legislation as required.
• Rule 2.14.2, in that Mr Dyer failed to notify the CIOT in writing of disciplinary action upheld against him by the ICAEW within two months as required.
• Rule 2.6.3, in that Mr Dyer performed his professional work or the duties of his employment improperly to such an extent and on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT, and to the tax profession and that Mr Dyer conducted himself in a manner which was unbefitting and which tends to bring discredit upon a member and which may harm the standing of the profession and the CIOT.
• Rule 7.6.5, in that Mr Dyer failed to keep clients’ money separate from money belonging to the firm by using his personal account for clients’ money which was not kept in a separate client account.
• The Fundamental Principle of Professional Behaviour in that he failed to take due care in all his professional conduct and professional dealings. He performed his professional work inefficiently, negligently and incompetently to such an extent as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT and to the tax profession.
The Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was that Mr Dyer be expelled from membership of CIOT and that he pay the TDB’s costs in the sum of £3,451.

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

Mr Simon Olver

At a hearing on 4 September 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Simon Olver of Reigate was in breach of the following Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines, namely:

• Rule 2.2.1, in that he was not honest in his professional work;

• Rule 2.2.2, in that he engaged in illegal activity;

• Rule 2.6.3, in that he performed his professional work or the duties of his employment improperly to such an extent and on such number of occasions as to be likely to bring discredit to himself, to the CIOT, and to the tax profession and that he conducted himself in a manner which was unbefitting and unlawful and illegal which tends to bring discredit upon a member and which may harm the standing of the profession and the CIOT;

• Rule 2.14.1, in that he failed to inform the CIOT within two months of the criminal charges, and of his conviction for fraud;

• Rule 2.14.2, in that he failed to inform the CIOT in writing of the disciplinary action upheld against him by the ICAEW within two months as required.

• Rule 2.13.2, in that he failed to respond to correspondence from the TDB.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Olver be expelled from membership of CIOT. It also ordered that he pay costs of £3,776.

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

Mr Paul O’Brien

At a hearing on 31 August 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board found that Mr Paul O’Brien of Knutsford, a member of The Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty on his own admission of the following charges, namely:

  • On 31 September 2022, Mr. O’Brien was made subject to a finding by another disciplinary body, namely the Disciplinary Committee of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEW”), in that he was severely reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of £5,000 in relation to the following admitted factual particular:

On or around 19 January 2016, Mr Paul G O’Brien sent to HMRC a letter dated 28 September 2012 addressed to [edited] Primary Care Trust purportedly written by [edited], advising that the rights and duties of its ‘GDS Contract’ had been subcontracted to [edited] when that letter had been created by Mr Paul G O’Brien. This conduct was dishonest because he knew that letter to be false and he sent it to HMRC with the intention that they would believe it to be true.

  • By reason of Charge 1.1 the Defendant has 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 contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr O’Brien be censured. It also ordered that he pay costs of £3,306.

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

Mr Dee Shah

At a hearing on 30 May 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Dee Shah of London, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty on his own admission of the following charges, namely:

  1. (a) having engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG 2018;(b) having conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG 2018

    by reason of having been convicted on or around 17 January 2021 of one charge of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescribed limit.

  2. Having breached rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG, 2018 as amended on 1 January 2021, by failing to inform the Head of Professional Standards at the ATT in writing of his criminal conviction within two months of 17th January 2021.

The Tribunal made an Order that Mr Shah receive a censure. It also ordered that Mr Shah pay costs of £2,724.

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

Mr Paul Dyer CIOT 131125

At a meeting on 5 July 2023, the Interim Orders Panel of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Paul Dyer of Nottingham, 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 Martin Scullion

At a hearing on 16 May 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Martin Scullion of London, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty on his own admission of the following charges, namely:

(a) having engaged in or been party to illegal behaviour, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG;
(b) having conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner, which tends to bring discredit upon himself, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG;
(c) having failed to inform the Head of Professional Standards at the ATT in writing of his accepting a police caution within two months of 14 October 2021 in breach of rule 2.14.1 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal made an Order that the complaint lie on file for a period of 12 months from the date of its decision. It also ordered that Mr Scullion pay costs of £2,568.

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

Mr Cho Han Michael Feng

At hearings on 27 July 2022, 6 October 2022 and 25 January 2023, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Cho Han Michael Feng of Willesden, London, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

1.1 On 21 May 2019 Mr Feng sent an email containing a document referred to as a ‘witness statement’ to a church with which his client (Mrs L) had an association (“the church”), disclosing thereby to the recipients of the email information provided by Mrs L 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 Mrs L 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 Mrs L to do so or a legal or professional right or duty to disclose the information.

1.2 On 18 May 2019 Mr Feng emailed the church at 15:24 and 23.16. The emails contained reference to the fact that a complaint had been made to the TDB by Mrs L and to the fact that Mr Feng was taking advice as to an action of defamation.

1.3 One of Mr Feng’s purposes in sending the emails identified in charges 1.1 and/or 1.2 was to seek to dissuade Mrs L from proceeding with her complaint to the TDB.

1.4 By reason of the matters identified at 1.1 to 1.3 above, 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.

The Tribunal determined that Mr Feng be suspended from membership of the Association of Taxation Technicians for a period of 12 months and pay costs in the sum of £17,461.50.

 

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

Mr David Christian

At hearing on 29 September 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr David Christian of the Isle of Man, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was guilty on his own admission
of the following charges, namely:

1. Mr Christian owned and at all material times operated the “Piebaps” User Account on the Contractor UK internet forum.
1.2. Between 1 February 2020 and May 2021, Mr Christian posted offensive comments on the HMRC Scheme Enquiries section of the Contractor UK internet forum.
1.3. Mr Christian is in breach of Rule 2.6.3, in that he conducted himself in an unbefitting manner which tended to bring discredit upon him and/or could harm the standing of the ATT.

The Tribunal made an Order that the complaint lie on file for a period of three years from the date of its decision. It also ordered that Mr Christian pay costs of £2,906.

 

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

Mr Nur Miah

At a hearing on 29 September 2022, the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Taxation Disciplinary Board determined that Mr Nur Miah, a student member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was guilty of the following charges, namely:

1. On or around 17 March 2022, Mr Miah pleaded guilty at Dudley Magistrates Court to three charges.
2. On or around 17 March 2022, Mr Miah was issued with a fine of £533 in respect of one of the charges.
3. On or around 27 May 2022, Mr Miah was sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court in respect of two of the charges to the following:

a) 20 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years;
b) an unpaid work requirement of 120 hours; and
c) participation in a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement(s) for a maximum of 30 days.

The Tribunal found that Mr Miah had:
a) failed to avoid any action which discredits the profession, contrary to rule 2.1 of the PRPG;
(b) engaged in or been party to illegal activity, contrary to rule 2.2.2 of the PRPG;
(c) failed to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT contrary to rule 2.6.2 of the PRPG;
(d) conducted himself in an unbefitting, unlawful or illegal manner which tends to bring discredit upon himself and/or may harm the standing of the profession and/or the CIOT, contrary to rule 2.6.3 of the PRPG.

The Tribunal determined that Mr Miah be expelled from membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and pay costs in the sum of £2,948.

 

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

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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