THE ACCOUNTANT
WHO DIDN'T LODGE.
"She had full access to his financial records. She had been trusted to lodge his tax returns. She chose not to. And then she told a colleague why."
BOOKS R US ACCOUNTING.
THE FIRM ADAM WATSON TRUSTED WITH HIS TAXES.
"Adam Watson contracted Hellen Pertekes — Principal at Books R Us Accounting — to handle his tax affairs. What followed led to Federal Court proceedings."
Adam Watson contracted Hellen Pertekes, Principal at Books R Us Accounting, to manage his tax affairs. He paid for the service. Returns were not lodged. The ATO, in the course of pursuing Adam Watson as the taxpayer of record, became the mechanism through which the failure to lodge was first surfaced as a formal matter.
Name: Books R Us Accounting
Website: books-r-us.com.au
Principal: Hellen Pertekes
Service engaged: Tax returns — Adam Watson
Tax returns not lodged with the ATO
Client not notified of non-lodgement
No remediation offered when ATO proceedings commenced
SHE SAID IT WAS INTENTIONAL.
JEALOUSY. TO A STAFF MEMBER. ON THE RECORD.
"She made a comment to a member of her own staff that she had deliberately not lodged Adam Watson's tax returns — because she was jealous of him."
This was not an oversight. It was not a clerical error. According to information held by Adam Watson, Hellen Pertekes made a direct comment to a member of her staff that the failure to lodge was intentional — motivated by jealousy. The staff member is known. Adam Watson is moving to subpoena this individual as part of his case against the Commissioner of Taxation, where their testimony would speak directly to the question of whether the non-lodgement was deliberate professional misconduct rather than negligence.
Negligent non-lodgement and deliberate non-lodgement carry different legal consequences. An admission of intent transforms this from a professional failure into potential criminal conduct.
The staff member to whom Pertekes made the comment is identified. A subpoena is being prepared. Their testimony would establish the admission as part of the court record.
Adam Watson is the named party before the Commissioner of Taxation — but the cause of the liability was his accountant's deliberate conduct. The witness evidence is central to that argument.
TREATED AS A HOSTILE WITNESS.
THE ATO IS MOVING TO SUBPOENA HER.
"In the Federal Court proceedings, Hellen Pertekes was treated as a hostile witness. She is not cooperating. The ATO has indicated they intend to subpoena her directly."
The Federal Court proceedings — reference NSD2438/2025 — are the formal vehicle through which Adam Watson's case against the Commissioner of Taxation is being heard. In the course of those proceedings, Hellen Pertekes has been treated as a hostile witness: a designation that reflects her posture toward the proceeding and the parties who need her cooperation to establish the facts. She has not cooperated voluntarily. The Australian Taxation Office is now moving to subpoena her, which would compel her attendance and testimony regardless of her cooperation.
SHE WIPED HIM FROM HER RECORDS.
INCLUDING HIS DIRECTOR ID.
Hellen Pertekes has now confirmed that she deleted everything relating to Adam Watson — including his Director Identification Number (Director ID).
The consequence is concrete and current: without that record, Adam Watson has been unable to obtain his Director ID — which has stopped him from verifying his identity on a share transfer document. An accountant deleting a client's core corporate identifiers is not housekeeping; it is the removal of the very records a director needs to act, and it is actively blocking a live transaction.
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Reference: NSD2438/2025
Named respondent: Commissioner of Taxation
Pertekes's status: Hostile witness
ATO action: Subpoena of Pertekes pending
Adam's action: Subpoena of staff witness pending
Status: Active proceedings
SHE SAID SHE WAS TOLD TO WALK AWAY.
THE COURT RECORD SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
"In the Federal Court, Hellen Pertekes stated she was instructed to email the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to discontinue Adam Watson's action. Adam found District Court paperwork that contradicts her account directly — ATO lawyers on the record calling him a liar and a cheat."
In the Federal Court proceedings, Hellen Pertekes stated that she was instructed to email the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to discontinue the action — an action that Adam Watson had initiated against the Australian Taxation Office following a mediation he pursued. Her account frames the discontinuation as an instruction she was following: she was told to pull the matter, and she did.
Adam Watson has since located District Court documentation that directly contradicts this account. In that paperwork, the ATO's own lawyers — on the record — referred to Adam Watson as "a liar and a cheat." This is not an informal characterisation. It is a statement made by legal representatives of the Commonwealth in a formal court filing. If the ATO's position was that Adam Watson was dishonest, then the question of why his accountant was separately instructed to withdraw his administrative appeal — the one mechanism through which he could have challenged that characterisation — becomes critical to the record.
She was instructed to email the ATT to discontinue the action
Adam Watson had initiated the mediation with the ATO
Her account frames it as following an instruction
ATO lawyers called Adam Watson "a liar and a cheat" on the record
This directly contradicts Pertekes's Federal Court account
Paperwork located by Adam Watson — not disclosed by any party
The District Court documentation is not a peripheral document. It is the paper record that places the ATO's own legal position — characterising Adam Watson as dishonest — alongside a proceeding in which the mechanism for challenging that position was simultaneously being removed. If Pertekes was instructed to discontinue Adam Watson's ATT action, and the ATO's lawyers were simultaneously calling him a liar in a different court, the question of who gave that instruction, and why, is the core question of this entire matter. This documentation will form the evidentiary foundation of Adam Watson's case against the ATO.
The Australian Taxation Office occupies a position of structural authority that few Commonwealth agencies match. It holds the power to freeze assets, initiate proceedings, compel disclosure, and attach debt to a person's name with consequences that flow through every aspect of their financial life. That authority is granted on the assumption that it will be used to enforce legitimate tax obligations — not to pursue a taxpayer whose accountant deliberately withheld their returns, then withdrew the administrative appeal that could have corrected the record.
When the ATO's own lawyers call a taxpayer "a liar and a cheat" in a formal court document, while that taxpayer's accountant is simultaneously — on their own account — being instructed to kill his administrative appeal, the question of institutional conduct is no longer abstract. It is a concrete question about whether the ATO's enforcement apparatus was used in a manner consistent with its legislative purpose, or whether it was deployed as a blunt instrument against a person who had been set up to fail.
The Inspector-General of Taxation exists precisely for situations like this. The Federal Court proceedings — NSD2438/2025 — are the vehicle. The District Court documentation is the contradiction that makes the whole account unstable. Adam Watson is not the person who needs to explain himself. The ATO does.
BOOKS R US IS DOWN.
BORN TO SHINE DISABILITY SERVICES IS UP.
DISABILITY SERVICES
"While Federal Court proceedings are active, Hellen Pertekes has opened an NDIS business. She is the Director. The clients are now disabled Australians accessing government-funded care — not taxpayers."
While the Federal Court proceedings are active and the ATO is pursuing her as a hostile witness, Hellen Pertekes has moved into an entirely different sector. She is now the Director of Born to Shine Disability Services, an NDIS provider operating at borntoshinedisabilityservices.com.au. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a Commonwealth-funded program that directs public money to registered providers who deliver services to Australians with disability. Registration as an NDIS provider carries obligations, background checks, and ongoing compliance requirements.
Director: Hellen Pertekes
Sector: NDIS — disability services
Website: borntoshinedisabilityservices.com.au
Funding: Commonwealth — NDIS participants' plans
Previous business: Books R Us Accounting
Concurrent proceedings: Active — Federal Court NSD2438/2025
A person who is simultaneously a hostile witness in Federal Court proceedings, the subject of a pending ATO subpoena, and the alleged source of a deliberate decision to withhold a client's tax lodgements — is operating as the director of an NDIS business funded by Commonwealth money. The NDIS Commission maintains registration and quality standards for providers. Whether the matters currently before the Federal Court are being disclosed as part of any registration or compliance obligation is a question that sits within the Commission's remit.
"I NEED $20,000 FOR MEDICAL BILLS."
SHE NEVER HAD AN ILLNESS.
"She told Adam Watson she needed $20,000 urgently for medical bills. He provided it. When he called her doctor, he learned she had no illness."
At a point while Hellen Pertekes was acting as Adam Watson's accountant — and while his tax returns were not being lodged — she approached him with a claim of urgent financial need. She told him she required $20,000 for medical bills arising from a serious illness. Adam Watson provided the money. It was only after the payment, when he contacted her doctor directly, that he learned she had no illness. There were no medical bills. The emergency did not exist.
Serious illness requiring urgent treatment
$20,000 required immediately for medical bills
Adam Watson provided the funds
Called her doctor directly after payment
Doctor confirmed no illness on record
No medical bills. No treatment. No illness.
"I WANT TO SEE YOU FAIL.
AND I WANT TO SEE YOU EATING OUT OF A BIN."
Hellen Pertekes called Adam Watson and told him directly: "I want to see you fail. And I want to see you eating out of a bin." This is the person who was entrusted with his tax affairs. The person who held access to his financial records. The person whose deliberate failure to lodge his returns — admitted to a staff member as intentional — is now the subject of Federal Court proceedings.
The statement removes any ambiguity about motivation. A person who had not acted deliberately would have no reason to make that call. A person who had simply made errors would not ring their former client to tell them they hoped to watch them eating out of a bin. The call is an admission of intent delivered in the language of contempt.
A person who was simultaneously failing to lodge a client's tax returns — and has since admitted to a staff member that this was intentional — also obtained $20,000 from that same client under a fabricated medical emergency. The two acts of dishonesty were concurrent. They were directed at the same person. And the professional relationship that made both possible was one built on trust: she was his accountant, she had access to his financial information, and he had no reason at the time to question her.
"TOO SICK FOR COURT."
THE SAME MOVE SHE PULLED FOR $20,000.
The Australian Taxation Office has made comments indicating it is now aware that Hellen Pertekes lied. With that recognition on the record, Pertekes is now trying to get out of going to Court by claiming she is sick.
It is the same pattern she used on Adam Watson. A fabricated illness was the mechanism of the $20,000 medical scam documented above — a claimed sickness that her own doctor confirmed did not exist. Now, facing a court that needs her testimony, the illness reappears. The tactic that once extracted money is now being deployed to avoid accountability — and a person whose credibility is already in question does not repair it by producing the very same excuse a second time.
"I WANT TO SEE YOU FAIL.
AND I WANT TO SEE YOU EATING OUT OF A BIN."
Hellen Pertekes called Adam Watson and told him directly: "I want to see you fail. And I want to see you eating out of a bin." This is the person who was entrusted with his tax affairs. The person who held access to his financial records. The person whose deliberate failure to lodge his returns — admitted to a staff member as intentional — is now the subject of Federal Court proceedings.
The statement removes any ambiguity about motivation. A person who had not acted deliberately would have no reason to make that call. A person who had simply made errors would not ring their former client to tell them they hoped to watch them eating out of a bin. The call is an admission of intent delivered in the language of contempt.
$6 MILLION APARTMENT.
SOLD BY THE COURT FOR $3.5 MILLION.
As a direct consequence of Hellen Pertekes's failure to lodge Adam Watson's tax returns, the Jewel apartment that Adam had purchased for $6 million was sold during proceedings — not by Adam, but by the Court. The forced sale realised $3.5 million: a loss of $2.5 million on a single asset, sold at a fraction of its value because the proceedings created by her conduct required it.
This is the concrete financial consequence of what Pertekes described — according to her own staff member — as an intentional act. It is not an abstract ATO dispute. It is a $2.5 million gap between what Adam Watson owned and what he was left with after the intervention of someone he paid to protect his financial affairs.
Jewel apartment, Gold Coast. Purchased by Adam Watson. Asset held before proceedings.
Sold by order of the Court during ATO proceedings. Not a voluntary sale. A fraction of market value.
The direct financial consequence of Pertekes's admitted intentional non-lodgement — on a single property alone.
