Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker (No 4) [2021] FCA 940

Federal Court of Australia

Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker (No 4) [2021] FCA 940 File number: QUD 106 of 2019

Judgment of: ABRAHAM J

Date of judgment: 10 August 2021

Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – contempts by first and second respondent admitted – consideration of appropriate penalties – consideration of age and health of first respondent and dependant spouse – comparison of similar cases – imposition of sentence of imprisonment on first respondent – imposition of fine on second respondent

Legislation: Tax Agent Services Act 2009 (Cth) ss 70-5, 90-5

Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949; (2002) 121 FCR 24 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Halkalia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 522 Australian Securities Investments Commission v Matthews [2009] NSWSC 285 Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hickey [1999] FCA 259 Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Cartledge (No 2) [2015] FCA 851 Ferguson v Dallow (No 5) [2021] FCA 698 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90 Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 83; (2006) 149 FCR 494 Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161 Matthews v ASIC [2009] NSWCA 155 at [129] McDonald v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2011] FCAFC 29; (2011) 202 IR 467 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291 Sydney Medical Service Co-operative Limited v Lakemba Medical Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1188 Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker (No 3) [2020] FCA 1814 Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 2) [2017] FCA 202 Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc [2011] FCAFC 17; (2011) 276 ALR 596 Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525