TPB review canvasses degree-minimum qualification

A review of the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) has directly canvassed whether the primary qualification for a tax agent should be increased to a degree-level qualification similar to that required of financial advisers under the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority regime.

The TPB today released a discussion paper resulting from the Government-initiated review of the TPB and the Tax Agent Services Act with one of the key consultations point being the question of the degree qualification for tax agents.

The discussion paper has also canvassed harmonising the code of conduct to be met by tax practitioners and that applying to financial advisers under the FASEA regime.

The discussion paper has also canvassed the registration of tax and BAS agents on the same basis as tax financial advisers and has thrown up seven options including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) being solely responsible for financial tax advisers with the TPB having no role and another option under which the TPB and ASIC would act as co-regulators.

The seven options canvassed in the discussion paper are as follows:

 




Author

Comments

Comments

Any chance we can request all these people setting rules, regulations and policy to get some industry experience and qualifications for what they are making decisions

Just feeling so totally overwhelmed by all this bull****. Frydenberg/Hume it is time to get realistic rather than playing politics and pandering to hypocritical minority groups (and Commissioner Hayne) who have hijacked many of the important agendas and discussions that are so darn important in getting right for the ongoing compliance and viability of our Industry. Or is the hidden agenda a "scorched Earth" policy and point scoring, with no one in a position of power,giving a damn about both the intended and unintended consequences being foisted upon us at the stroke of a pen. It is one thing to be seen to be doing something and it is another matter actually doing something that has value and makes sense (and only after after all necessary Due Diligence and legal implications have been addressed). This is now all getting out of hand, with everyone with a so called vested interest, having an opinion and wanting a "clip of the ticket". Enough is enough. Time to lobby loud and lobby hard before we get buried by all this . Am totally over it!!!

They are just elitists who think they know everything.

how many regulators/ overseers can i have. here is a list:

a. my stupid dealer group compliance turds who have no degrees, only a box checking background, who don't know anything about commerce, tax, advice, finance, or regulations and don't understand any of my advice and i keep having to explain everything to them after which they come back saying, oh that makes sense and is right.

b. the stupid fpa

c. the code monitoring body i have to join now

d. the tpb

e. the asic

f. the product makers

g. the PI insurer

h. now fasea

how many bodies need to have oversight of me, the person who is single handedly more qualified than all the turds mentioned above put together. FFS.

Option 2 seems to make the most sense. Financial advisers are already stringently regulated by ASIC. There is no need for additional regulation (and cost and complexity) from TPB. The TPB should stick to its knitting and focus purely on tax and BAS agents.

Agree that Option 2 is the best. We pay a supervisory levy of over $900 pa to ASIC anyway. Let's get rid of FASEA and the wasted $$$$ that pays a largely silent FASEA Board. Whilst they're currently funded by a select group of large licensees, this agreement runs out and then the whole industry will need to fund them.,

Add new comment