Barrister facing suspension accused of tax failures
A Western Australian barrister fighting to hold onto her practising certificate has been accused of failing to comply with tax obligations and lying to a major bank on a home loan application.
Saritha Andrews, who practised out of Francis Burt Chambers, was successful in convincing a tribunal to stay a decision of the Legal Practice Board to suspend her practising certificate, but will soon face an “urgent” hearing to determine allegations of non-compliance.
At the end of last year, Andrews had her certificate suspended after the board claimed she had allegedly worked without a practising certificate. A month later, she applied for and was successful in securing a stay order until a review application could be heard.
Earlier this month, the board applied to the Western Australia State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) to have the stay order set aside on the grounds that Andrews allegedly failed to comply with tax and disclosure obligations.
While Andrews accepted she failed to lodge eight annual tax returns and 16 quarterly business activity statements (BAS), she said she did not make a deliberate decision to avoid paying income tax and GST.
In her defence, Andrews added she has not been prosecuted by the ATO, she has not been declared bankrupt, the small amount of GST debt has been paid, and there was no suggestion she had lived a “lavish lifestyle” as a result of non-payments.
While Judge Henry Jackson was satisfied there was a “serious question to be tried” at the review hearing, the circumstances of the alleged offending were not enough to set aside the stay order.
The Legal Practice Board also alleged Andrews failed to disclose her non-compliance to the board over several years when she applied for practising certificates, including in her application for 2023–24.
Andrews said she did not do so because she did not know she was obligated to disclose those matters to the board, “and did not think that a failure by a legal practitioner to lodge income tax returns and/or business activity statements with the ATO could be found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct”.
Whether that explanation should be accepted was for “another time”, but Judge Jackson said he would not find it was so “inexplicable” to revoke the stay order or to make a finding that she posed a risk to the profession’s reputation pending the review hearing.
The board’s third ground was that Andrews had misled Macquarie Bank by representing she was employed by Wise Family Lawyers at a time when she knew her employment “would end imminently”.
The board also alleged Andrews misled the bank about her annual salary and failed to disclose as liabilities her debt to Francis Burt Chambers and an undertaking to repay those clients “from whom she took fees while practising without a certificate”.
Andrews’ evidence was that she made those full disclosures of all relevant matters to her mortgage broker, who advised her to sign the form.
Judge Jackson said that without making any findings of fact, he did not accept the board’s allegation are such that her practising certificate should remain suspended until after the review hearing.
The judge added he was “firmly of the view” that the substantive review hearing should be brought on for hearing “as a matter of urgency”, particularly because the board’s decision to suspend Andrews’ practising certificate is due to expire on 30 June 2025.
The parties have been directed to communicate about timetabling.
