Increase funding to TPB says CPA Australia

The Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) needs more funding if it is to regulate more entities, according to accountancy group, CPA Australia.

While a number of financial planners have expressed resentment at the increasing role of the TPB in planning activities, CPA Australia has used its pre-Budget submission to the Treasury to urge a higher level of funding for the body.

In doing so, it has cited the increased work likely to flow from the so-called Black Economy Taskforce.

Related News:

“If the role of the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) is to be expanded to take a more active role in monitoring and investigating tax agents that may be facilitating questionable behaviour as has been suggested by the Black Economy Taskforce, it is important that the TPB receive an appropriate and ongoing increase in their funding to enable it to undertake such an expanded role,” the submission said.

“The responsibilities of the TPB and the number of entities it regulates has grown substantially in recent years – yet funding for its operations has not,” the CPA Australia submission said.

It said that while the TPB continued to be an effective regulator, CPA Australia was concerned about whether it could remain as such, which may in turn have other negative consequences for consumers.

“For example, it may impact community trust in both the tax and accounting profession and the tax system more broadly given the key role the tax and accounting profession plays in the community’s compliance with tax laws in a tax system that is based on voluntary compliance,” the CPA Australia submission said.

It said that in requesting a boost to the funding of the TPB, CPA Australia was not advocating for the introduction of a user-pays/cost recovery model of funding for the TPB.

Elsewhere in its submission, CPA Australia questioned the industry funding/user pays model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), stating it “cannot support the full cost recovery model as proposed and recommend that the government instead explore a partial cost recovery model”.

The submission said this was primarily due to the proposed fees in several areas, especially the application fee for self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) auditors, were in no way appropriate and that “the proposed fees may have repercussions for those working in, or aspiring to work in those areas, as well as consumer choice”.

“The government has failed to adequately explain the link between ‘the incidence of fees and levies and the cost of regulating the relevant activity’ - a requirement stipulated in the 2014 final report of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI),” the submission said.

“The full cost recovery funding model takes a narrow view regarding those that create the need for regulation, and therefore regulated entities carry a disproportionate cost burden. A well-functioning, efficient capital market that operates with integrity, encourages competition and is accessible to the vast majority of people is a public good and funding of ASIC should reflect this.”

Recommended for you



What has the TPB provided to Financial Advisers? Talk about fee for no service!

I got a certificate I put up on the wall, next to my other ones. Its looks ok. Apart from that I cannot understand why we need to even be part of the TPB. I cant do tax returns, I cant access the clients ATO tax portal. I can talk in a general sense about tax but then again anyone can. We are policed by ASIC, we have the FPA, AFA, we have a dealership we pay fees to, we pay our own PI, this is like 4 or 5 different levels of supervision already that clip the ticket on our income, and we need more supervision apparently, and brand new uni degrees as we as a industry keep getting bent over and roped into this stuff is very depressing to be honest, people that have a voice in the industry need to grow some nuts pardon the pun and start fighting back against this.

Dear TJ I guess the thinking is if we are only monitored by 3 different bodies we will do the wrong thing by every client, and commit all sorts of fraud, and theft. But if we are monitored by 4 organisations then we will clean up our act, and be perfect. Logically if we are monitored by 6 different organisations we can stop the next GFC, control US politicians, and eliminate all pollution. Someone in Canberra or a lobby group is already working on this.....

So many greedy government servants who see advisers as the golden money pot at the end of the rainbow. What will happen to all your newly created jobs focused on achieving nothing when advisers stop being advisers and recommend all the current investments/insurances under general advice because of ridiculous compliance, falling revenue and the decision to drive qualified advisers out of the industry with the new educational standards.

If any other industry had to fork out so much money for NOTHING then they would be up in arms. Imagine if you told a Mechanic that he/she has to pay $400 to give advice on the electrics of the car and another $400 to give advice on the air conditioning, or told a doctor that he/she has to be registered to provide any advice on mental health, or told a builder that he has to pay $400 to advise on plumbing.

Why would anyone ever want to start out as a financial adviser these days?

Add new comment