Brad Phelan

Member’s name: Brad Phelan
Date of Hearing: 3 September 2026
Division: Victoria
Tribunal: Disciplinary

On 3 September 2026 the Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr Brad Phelan breached Article 36(a) of CPA Australia’s 11 May 2022 Constitution (the Constitution) in that he had “committed, participated in or been involved with an Adverse Event” as defined in:

Complaint 1
Article 76(e) of the Constitution as having “failed to observe a proper standard of professional care, skill or competence” in relation to a client’s Administrative Review Tribunal matter.

Background
An application was lodged on behalf of a client to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) to review the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO”) Objection Decision disallowing the client’s borrowing expenses.

Mr Phelan advised the ART that he was the “new advisor” for his client, having been appointed in “the last few weeks” and that he was aware that a hearing had been listed. He further stated that he had a general understanding of the matter and that his client was aware of what had been happening. Mr Phelan advised that responses were “half done”, and he was seeking advice from a tax lawyer about his client’s prospects of success.

Mr Phelan did not hold current and proper instructions from the client; he did not advise him of the progress of the matter or of the hearing date. He appeared before the ART unprepared and with limited knowledge of the matter, such that he was a direct cause of the application being dismissed by the ART. This amounts to serious professional misconduct, such that he failed to observe a proper standard of professional care, skill or competence.

Complaint 2
Article 76(c) of the Constitution as having “breached this Constitution (or a constitution of the Company in force from time to time before the Amending Date), By-Laws, Code of Professional Conduct or the Applicable Regulations” by failing to provide further information as required by By-Law 5.2(b)(ii).

Background
Mr Phelan failed to provide further information requested of him. Coupled with his bullet point answers, rather than a sufficient and satisfactory explanation, Mr Phelan frustrated the investigation process.

Complaint 3
Article 76(e) of the 11 May 2022 Constitution as having “failed to observe a proper standard of professional care, skill or competence” by failing to provide requested documents to a client.

Background
Mr Phelan failed to provide documents requested by a client. Mr Phelan’s firm was under voluntary administration about a month after the client requested the documents. Mr Phelan had ample time to provide the documents to the client or could have requested access to the documents from the administrator and/or subsequent liquidator.  The failure to provide the requested documentation might have jeopardised the client’s ability to reinstate his application that was dismissed by the ART - the substance of Complaint 1.

Decision
Mr Phelan attended the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing and denied the Complaints. The Disciplinary Tribunal considered the evidence before it and found the Complaints sustained.  

Penalty and Conditions
The Disciplinary Tribunal considered that Mr Phelan's handling of the ART matter involved serious professional failings, including inadequate supervision, case management, communication and preparation. These failures resulted in him appearing materially unprepared and the application being dismissed. The conduct fell seriously below the standard expected of a CPA Australia member. 

Mr Phelan failed to respond adequately and promptly to CP Australia's requests for information contrary to By-Law 5. This impeded the investigation and reflected insufficient regard to his professional obligations. Cooperation with disciplinary investigations is an important professional obligation. 

Mr Phelan failed to provide requested documents and correspondence and to respond within a reasonable time to his client. This formed part of a broader pattern of inadequate professional attention and responsiveness. 

Taken together, these matters materially reduced the weight given to the mitigating factors. The Tribunal noted that there is an expectation that members uphold the highest standards of personal and professional conduct both within and outside their practice. The public rightly expects that a member of the profession behaves in a manner that upholds its standing and conduct of this kind is wholly inconsistent with that expectation. The Disciplinary Tribunal imposed the following penalty:  

Complaint 1:

• Forfeiture of membership; not eligible for readmission for three years and then upon satisfaction of readmission conditions applicable at that time. 
• Prior to applying for readmission, the Member successfully completes a compliant Practice Review or its equivalent, at the Member’s own cost. 
• Prior to applying for a readmission, the member successfully completes the following CPA Australia courses or their equivalent as approved by the General Manager Professional Conduct (GMPC):
  
  - People and Workflows
  - Delegating and Effective Delegation
  - Certificate of Ethics.

Complaint 2:

• A severe reprimand
• Fine of $2,000.

Complaint 3:

• A severe reprimand.
• The member successfully completes the CPA Australia course, “Professional Ethics in Force 2025” or its equivalent as approved by the GMPC by the 31 December 2026 with evidence to be provided to the GMPC of successful completion.

Costs
The Member was ordered to pay CPA Australia’s costs of $12,244.20.