Findings & Orders

At its hearing on 24 May 2011, the Disciplinary Tribunal found that a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) was, on his own admission, in breach of Rule 2.3.1 (Failure to act with courtesy and consideration) as set out in the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) of the CIOT (2006 edition).

At its hearings on 8 October 2010 and 13 December 2010, the Disciplinary Tribunal found that Dr Maurice Laverty of Ballycastle, Northern Ireland, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), was, on his own admission, in breach of several provisions set out in the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) of the CIOT.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 13 December, found that Ms Allison Thomson of Dumfries, Scotland, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) and of the Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT), was in breach of Rule 2.2.1 (Integrity) as set out in the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) of the CIOT and the ATT.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 8 October 2010, determined that Mr Moses Kiwanuka of Edgware, Middlesex, a student member of the Chartered institute of Taxation, was in breach of Rules 2.2.1 (Integrity) and 2.15 (Failure to inform the CIOT of disciplinary action taken by other professional bodies), as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 8 October 2010, determined that Mr Malcolm Stewart Graham of Newcastle, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT), was in breach of Rules 2.2.1 (Integrity) and 2.15 (Failure to inform the ATT of disciplinary action taken by other professional bodies), as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 28 May 2010, determined that Mr Peter Graeme Male of Bridgwater, Somerset, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT), was in breach of Rules 2.1.1 (Failure to take due care in his conduct), 2.3.1 (Courtesy), 2.13A (Failure to respond to correspondence) and 2.15 (Failure to comply with the disciplinary process and orders).

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 28 April 2010, found that Mr Kevin Blyth of Leicester, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of Rules 2.13.1 (two charges regarding the provision of information to the ATT), 2.13A (Provision of information to the TDB) and 2.14.1(Compliance with an order from the TDB).

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 28 April 2010, determined that a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation was in breach of Rule 2.1.1 (Conduct) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 11 March 2010, determined that Mr William Darby of Birmingham, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of Rule 2.3.1 (Courtesy and Consideration) and of Guidelines 4.3.4 and 10.1.5 (Disclosure of information to a successor adviser), as set out in the Association’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 11 March 2010, determined that Mr Nicholas Tyrrell of London, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), was in breach of Rules 2.1.2 (Discreditable Conduct), 2.15 (Failure to inform the CIOT of disciplinary action taken by other professional bodies) and 2.13A (Failure to cooperate with the Taxation Disciplinary Board), as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006, as amended.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 11 March 2010, determined that Mr Colin Reid of London, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of Rules 2.2.1 (Integrity), 2.3.1 (Courtesy and Consideration) and 2.13A (Failure to cooperate with the Taxation Disciplinary Board), as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006, as amended.

The Disciplinary Tribunal sat on 26 to 28 October in order to hear four charges brought against Mr Bernard Rice of Maidstone, Kent. The Tribunal found that three of the charges were not proved, but that on the fourth charge Mr Rice had failed to take due care in his professional dealings, contrary to Rule 2.2.1as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2002 edition.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 7 December 2009, determined that Mr Stephen Dann of London and Bangkok, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of Paragraph 2.1.2 (Discreditable Conduct), 2.13.1 (Provision of Information) and 2.14.1 (Compliance with the Disciplinary Process) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 7 December 2009, determined that Ms Nicola Day of Allerton, Liverpool, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of Paragraph 1.3 of the Taxation Disciplinary Scheme 2008 (Inadequate Professional Service) and of Rules 2.1.1 (Lack of Care), 2.1.2 (Discreditable Conduct) and 2.3.1 (Courtesy and Consideration) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 7 December 2009, determined that Ms Bharati Shah of Harrow, Middlesex, a member of the Association of Taxation Technicians, was in breach of Rule 2.2.1 (Integrity) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 27 November 2009, determined that Mr Claude Greaves of London, a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, was in breach of Rules 2.2 (Conduct), 2.3 (Competence) and 2.6 (Integrity) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 1999; and of Rules 2.2 (Care and Conscientiousness) and 2.6 (Integrity) in the PRPG 2002.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 7 December 2009, determined that a student member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation was in breach of Rules 2.1.2 (Discreditable Conduct) and 2.6.2 (Confidentiality) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 16 September 2009, determined that Mr Geoffrey Marshall of Wheatley, Oxford was in breach of Rules 2.12.1 and 3.7.2 (Professional Indemnity Insurance) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2002; and of Rules 2.12.1 and 3.11.2 (Professional Indemnity Insurance); Rule 2.2.1 (Integrity); and Rule 2.3.1 (Courtesy and Consideration) in the PRPG 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 18 June 2009, determined that Mr David Weatherley of 22 Minster Yard, Lincoln LN2 1PY was in breach of Rule 2.3.1 (Courtesy) andRule 2.13A (Provision of Information to the Taxation Disciplinary Board) and of Practice Guidelines 4.3.4 and 10.1.5 (Provision of Information to a successor adviser) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006 (PRPG).

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 18 June 2009, determined that Mr Olaniyi Ogunsina, a student member of the Institute, of 143 Pembury Avenue, Worcester Park, Surrey KT4 8BX, was guilty of two breaches of Rule 2.15 (Failure to report a criminal conviction and Failure to report disciplinary proceedings commenced by another professional body) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006 (PRPG).

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 3 December 2008, determined that Mr Stephen Dann, whose UK registered address is Suite 404, Albany House, 324-326 Regent Street, London W1B 3HH, was in breach of Rule 2.1.2 (performing his professional work inefficiently so as to bring discredit to himself and to the ATT); Rule 2.3.1 (failing to act with courtesy and consideration through his failure to respond to correspondence from two clients); and Rule 2.13A (failing to provide information requested by the Taxation Disciplinary Board) in the Association’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006 (PRPG). He was also found to have provided inadequate professional service to a client, contrary to the provisions of the Taxation Disciplinary Scheme 2008.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 13 August 2008, determined that Ms Sarah Place of Unit 5, Brunel Business Court, Eastern Way, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP32 7AB, was in breach of Rule 2.5.1 (Objectivity and Independence), Rules 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 (Confidentiality) and of Practice Guidelines set out in Sections 6.1 and 6.3 of the Association's Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006 (PRPG).

The Disciplinary Tribunal agreed that the Chartered Institute of Taxation should dismiss charges involving a member against whom the Investigation Committee had found that there was a prima facie case of a breach of Rules 2.3.1 and 2.5.1 of the PRPG.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 11 June 2008, determined that a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation was in breach of Rules 2.2.1 (Care and conscientiousness), Rule 2.3.1 (Competence), Rule 2.7.1 (Courtesy) and Practice Guideline 11.1.2 (Complaints to members) set out in the Institute's Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2002.

The Disciplinary Tribunal agreed that the Association of Taxation Technicians should dismiss charges involving a member against whom the Investigation Committee had found that there was a prima facie case of a breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.7 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2002.

The Disciplinary Committee, at its meeting on 11 December 2007, determined that Mr Neil Macpherson of 24 Atlantic Avenue, Station Road, Witham, CM8 2TL was in breach of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2002 on two counts.

The Disciplinary Committee, at its meeting on 11 December 2007, determined that Mr David Anthony Lumb of 25 Pownall Avenue, Bramhall, Stockport SK7 2HE was in breach of rules 2.12.1 and 2.3.1 of the Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006.

The Disciplinary Committee heard a case in which a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation was charged with four breaches of the Institute's Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines 2006.

The Disciplinary Tribunal, at its hearing on 28 May 2010, determined that a former firm of Chartered Tax Advisers was in breach of Rule 2.4.1 (Competence) as set out in the Institute’s Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (PRPG) 2006. The firm owed the complainant a duty of care to act as reasonably competent and skilled tax advisers, and was found to have breached that duty when carrying out work for the complainant in the period 2004 to 2006. The Tribunal determined that, in breaching that duty of care, the firm had not breached other rules as alleged in the particulars of the charge.

At its hearing on 3 December 2008, the Disciplinary Tribunal heard a case involving Mr Ehsanul Malik of Lomond Road, Heald Green, Cheadle, Cheshire, on charges arising from disciplinary findings made against him by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). The Disciplinary Tribunal found that Mr Malik was in breach of Rule 2.15.1 of the PRPG for failing to inform the CIOT about the ICAEW's disciplinary proceedings. Mr Malik was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £750. However, the Tribunal dismissed other charges against Mr Malik on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the TDB was inadmissible under the Taxation Disciplinary Scheme Regulations 2008.