AI in Australian accounting and tax practice

The Tax Practitioners Board says AI may be able to assist in the provision of tax agent services, but practitioners remain responsible for the services they provide. Its guidance statement TPB(GS) 55/2026, issued 22 July 2026, says practitioners must exercise their own professional judgement, should not rely on AI output as a substitute for their own analysis of a client's circumstances, and should verify and review AI-generated content at each step of the workflow. The TPB describes itself as neither for nor against AI.

For registered tax and BAS agents, Code item 6 says information relating to a client's affairs must not be disclosed to a third party without the client's permission, unless there is a legal duty to do so. The TPB says a third party is any entity other than the client and the practitioner, and that this can include AI models and tools depending on how they are configured and used. Where it does, permission must be obtained from each client first. The TPB supports obtaining and documenting consent, for example through a signed letter of engagement or signed consent, and says a general authority consenting to disclosure to third parties may also be acceptable.

No. It is a guidance statement. It says it does not create additional rights or legal obligations beyond those in the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. The binding obligations are the Code of Professional Conduct in section 30-10 of that Act and the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024. The guidance explains how the TPB sees those obligations applying to AI, and the TPB can impose sanctions for breaches of the Code itself.

The registered tax practitioner. The TPB says that even where AI tools make mistakes, this does not remove the practitioner's obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct or their responsibility for the advice they provide to clients. For members of the professional accounting bodies, APESB's October 2025 Technical Alert says the same of APES 110: members remain responsible for the analysis, the underlying professional judgements and the outcomes.

The TPB says the use of AI does not change existing record-keeping obligations, and that records should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with professional obligations, reasonable care and the decision-making processes applied. It suggests practitioners may wish to keep records showing what AI tool was used, the purpose it was used for, the human review and verification undertaken, the final advice or work product, and client consent where relevant. Section 30 of the Code Determination requires client records to be retained for at least five years.

It depends. A small business operator, broadly a business with annual turnover of $3 million or less that is not caught by a listed exception, is not an organisation under the Privacy Act. But a person who holds records containing tax file number information is a file number recipient and must comply with the Privacy (Tax File Number) Rule 2015, and a small business operator that is an AML/CTF reporting entity is treated as an organisation for its AML/CTF-related activities. The AML/CTF regime has covered designated services provided by the accounting sector since 1 July 2026. The TPB advises practitioners to consider whether the Privacy Act applies to them and to seek their own advice.

It applies to APP entities. From 10 December 2026 an APP entity's privacy policy must describe the kinds of personal information used, and the kinds of decisions made, where a computer program makes, or does a thing substantially and directly related to making, a decision that could reasonably be expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests using their personal information. A practice that is an APP entity and uses such a program needs to update its privacy policy. A practice that is not an APP entity should first confirm its Privacy Act coverage.