Tax advisers who breach professional and registration rules now face substantially tougher penalties under Australia's strengthened tax-practitioner accountability framework.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Act 2026 has become law, with key amendments to the Tax Agent Services Act taking effect from 1 October 2026.

The reforms increase maximum deregistration bans from five years to 10 years, substantially raise civil penalties and introduce criminal offences aimed at people who provide or advertise tax agent or BAS services without registration.

The New Rules Are Now in Force

The legislation completed the parliamentary process in September 2026 and is now Act No. 86 of 2026.

The amendments affecting the tax practitioner regulatory framework commenced from 1 October 2026.

That means the tougher enforcement settings are no longer merely proposed.

Registered practitioners, unregistered preparers and taxpayers using paid tax services are now operating under the strengthened framework.

Why the Regulatory Framework Was Strengthened

The reforms follow concerns about whether existing sanctions were sufficient to deter serious misconduct within the tax advisory sector.

Previous rules allowed regulators to suspend or terminate a practitioner's registration, impose certain civil penalties and prevent a person from reapplying for registration for a limited period.

The new framework significantly expands those powers.

The aim is to create stronger consequences for serious misconduct while also providing additional enforcement tools for less severe or emerging compliance problems.

Deregistration Bans Can Now Reach 10 Years

One of the major changes concerns practitioners whose registration is terminated.

Previously, a person whose registration was terminated could be prevented from reapplying for up to five years.

The maximum exclusion period has now doubled to 10 years.

This means serious misconduct can potentially remove a practitioner from the registered tax-advice system for an extended period.

The longer exclusion period is intended to strengthen deterrence and reduce the risk of practitioners returning to the system shortly after serious breaches.

Civil Penalties Have Increased Sharply

Maximum civil penalties for certain breaches have also increased significantly.

For individuals, the maximum penalty rises from 250 penalty units to 2,500 penalty units.

For bodies corporate and significant global entities, the maximum rises from 1,250 penalty units to 50,000 penalty units.

These are maximum statutory amounts rather than automatic penalties.

The actual penalty imposed in a particular case depends on the relevant breach, legal proceedings and surrounding circumstances.

A Hypothetical Penalty Example

Consider a Commonwealth penalty unit of $364.

At 250 penalty units, the previous maximum for an individual would equal:

250 × $364 = $91,000.

At 2,500 penalty units, the new maximum would equal:

2,500 × $364 = $910,000.

For a company, 1,250 penalty units would equal:

1,250 × $364 = $455,000.

At 50,000 penalty units, the maximum would equal:

50,000 × $364 = $18.2 million.

These calculations illustrate the scale of the increase.

They do not mean those amounts will apply in every enforcement action.

Why Corporate Penalties Increased More Sharply

The increase for corporate entities is particularly large.

A civil penalty needs to be significant enough to act as a deterrent even where the organisation involved has substantial revenue or professional-fee income.

A relatively small maximum penalty may have limited deterrent effect on a large advisory business.

The new structure therefore creates much higher potential financial consequences for corporate misconduct.

New Criminal Offences Target Unregistered Preparers

The reforms also introduce criminal offences targeting people who operate outside the tax practitioner registration system.

The new offences cover conduct such as providing tax agent or BAS services without the required registration.

They also extend to advertising those services and misrepresenting a person's qualifications or registration status.

The maximum penalty for relevant offences can include 40 months' imprisonment, 200 penalty units, or both.

This is a significant change because unregistered conduct can now attract criminal as well as civil consequences.

Registration Matters for Paid Tax Services

A person generally needs appropriate registration to charge a fee for tax agent or BAS services covered by the regulatory framework.

Taxpayers should therefore check whether the person preparing or lodging their return is properly registered.

This becomes particularly important where services are advertised through social media, messaging platforms or informal networks.

A person describing themselves as a tax expert, accountant or return preparer is not automatically authorised to provide regulated tax agent services for payment.

More Enforcement Options Are Available

The strengthened framework provides regulators with more tools between informal action and full deregistration.

These include infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and additional suspension mechanisms.

Interim or contingent suspensions can also be used in specified circumstances.

This gives the regulator more flexibility to respond to misconduct proportionately.

A lower-level breach may be dealt with differently from conduct presenting an immediate risk to clients or the tax system.

Interim Suspensions Can Act Quickly

Interim suspension powers can be particularly important where serious concerns arise before a full investigation is complete.

A suspension of up to 90 days can restrict a practitioner from continuing certain activities while the matter is examined.

Previously, regulators could face a difficult choice between allowing a practitioner to continue operating or waiting until a full termination process was completed.

The expanded suspension framework creates an additional protective measure during investigations.

Enforceable Undertakings Provide Another Option

An enforceable undertaking allows a practitioner or entity to commit formally to specified corrective action.

This can include changes to systems, procedures, training or compliance arrangements.

If the undertaking is breached, further enforcement action can follow.

This mechanism can be useful where misconduct can be addressed without immediately terminating registration but where a simple warning would be insufficient.

What the Changes Mean for Taxpayers

For taxpayers, one of the main practical implications is the importance of checking who is providing tax services.

Using a properly registered practitioner can offer protections that may not be available when dealing with an unregistered preparer.

Registered practitioners are subject to professional standards, regulatory oversight and conduct requirements.

They can also participate in tax-agent lodgment arrangements where the relevant conditions are met.

Unregistered Preparers Can Create Additional Risks

Using an unregistered preparer can expose taxpayers to several problems.

The return may contain incorrect deductions, omitted income or unsupported claims.

The taxpayer generally remains responsible for the accuracy of information submitted in their name.

An unregistered preparer may also not have access to the same official systems or lodgment arrangements as a registered tax professional.

The strengthened criminal offences are designed in part to discourage people from offering regulated services outside the registration framework.

Safe-Harbour Protections Can Depend on Registration

Certain penalty protections can apply where a taxpayer has provided all relevant information to a registered tax agent and an error arises because of the agent's conduct.

Those protections are subject to specific conditions.

Using an unregistered preparer can mean those protections are not available.

This creates another reason to verify registration before providing personal tax records or paying for return preparation.

What Taxpayers Should Check

Before engaging someone to prepare a tax return or provide BAS services, taxpayers can confirm whether the person or business holds the appropriate registration.

The name used in advertising should match the practitioner or entity actually providing the service.

Taxpayers should also be cautious where someone promises unusually large refunds, encourages deductions without supporting records or asks for refunds to be paid into an unrelated bank account.

Registration does not guarantee that every piece of advice will be correct, but it establishes that the practitioner operates within the regulated system.

The Reforms Cover More Than Deregistration

The legislation is broader than the 10-year ban.

It increases financial penalties, creates new criminal offences, expands regulatory powers and strengthens the range of actions available against misconduct.

The result is a system with more steps between minor compliance action and permanent exclusion.

That allows different responses depending on the seriousness and urgency of the conduct involved.

What to Watch Next

The next phase will be how the strengthened powers are used in practice.

Enforcement activity involving unregistered preparers will be particularly important because criminal offences now form part of the framework.

The use of interim suspensions, infringement notices and enforceable undertakings will also show how regulators apply the expanded range of sanctions.

For taxpayers, the practical message is straightforward: check that any person charging to prepare a tax return or provide regulated tax services is properly registered before handing over financial records.