The TPB Code and AI: what tax agents owe their clients.

APES 110 binds members of the professional bodies. Registered tax agents and BAS agents carry a second, statutory set of obligations: the Code of Professional Conduct in the Tax Agent Services Act 2009, administered by the Tax Practitioners Board. The Code itself does not mention AI. The Board’s Guidance Statement TPB(GS) 55/2026, issued on 22 July 2026, explains how its items apply when AI is used in tax agent services, and several of those items apply directly whenever AI touches tax work. This page covers the items; our guide to the guidance statement covers what the Board expects in detail.

Confidentiality

The confidentiality item is short: unless you have a legal duty to do so, you must not disclose any information relating to a client’s affairs to a third party without your client’s permission. A cloud AI provider is a third party. So for any AI tool that sends client information outside the practice, the question is whether the client has given permission. The wording is narrower than the exceptions in APES 110: a legal duty or the client’s permission, and nothing else.

Competence and reasonable care

Four further items bear on AI-assisted work:

• Competence. You must ensure that a tax agent service you provide, or that is provided on your behalf, is provided competently.
• Knowledge and skills. You must maintain knowledge and skills relevant to the tax agent services you provide.
• Ascertaining the client’s affairs. You must take reasonable care in ascertaining a client’s state of affairs, to the extent that is relevant to a statement you are making or a thing you are doing on the client’s behalf.
• Applying the law correctly. You must take reasonable care to ensure that taxation laws are applied correctly to the circumstances in relation to which you are providing advice.

Taking reasonable care with an AI summary of a client’s documents means checking it against the documents. Taking reasonable care with an AI answer about a deduction means checking it against the legislation and the ATO’s published view. Work that relies on a tool is still a service the practice provides.

Supervision and quality management

The TPB expects registered agents to maintain adequate supervision and control, and a quality management system that gives reasonable confidence the practice is complying with the Tax Agent Services Act, including the Code and the Code Determination (TPB guidance on supervision, competency and quality management). Its suggested measures include a substantial degree of oversight of staff work, initial and ongoing training, documented procedures, quality control mechanisms, spot checks of source documents, and a written supervisory plan. The Act also has civil penalty provisions for signing a declaration or statement about a client that was not prepared by someone working under your supervision and control.

For a practice using AI, that points to three things: knowing which staff use which tools for which work, review steps built into the workflow, and a supervisory plan that says how AI-assisted work is checked before anything is lodged or signed. Our firm AI policy guide sets out how to write those down.

Where deployment posture fits

The confidentiality item is where deployment matters most. If AI processing happens on hardware inside the practice, client information is not disclosed to a third party, so the permission question does not arise for that tool. Competence, reasonable care and supervision remain the practitioner’s whatever the tool. Our page on tax research shows how an Ermos unit answers from the practice’s own files with the source excerpts attached, which is what makes the checking quick.

Common questions