The Law Society has published a question and answer section on its website relating to the upcoming requirement for conveyancers to register as tax advisers with HMRC.
Despite efforts to convince the government that conveyancers should not be identified as tax advisers under the Finance Act 2026 for the role they play in processing stamp duty land tax (SDLT) payments, HMRC is pressing ahead with the requirement for registration from 18th May 2026.
“Tax adviser registration is an additional and unnecessary administrative burden being placed on many of our members,” said Law Society of England and Wales president Mark Evans. “But despite us evidencing this to government they are still going ahead with it.”
The Q&A tackles a series of questions around how to prepare and what steps firms may need to take, and seeks to clarify some of the outstanding queries conveyancers have about registration requirements. However, in the absence of the sector-specific guidance HMRC promised earlier this month, queries remain.
From 18th May, firms will have three months to register through an HMRC agent services account. Firms who do not have an account will need to create one.
Who needs to register remains unclear. Sole traders should register as an individual, and where firms have five or fewer directors, partners or equivalent, each person who submits returns will need to register as ‘relevant individuals’.
For firms with six or more directors, partners or equivalent, any five individuals who manage or “play a significant role in managing or organising tax advisers” must register. The Law Society said it is seeking clarification on whether this might include, for example, the manager of a post-completion team rather than a director or equivalent.
There is also ongoing uncertainty whether firms who plan to outsource tax advice should register. In the Q&A, the Law Society says it is seeking clarification from HMRC about whether the outsourcing of SDLT return could exempt firms from registration: “There may be an exception for firms that outsource the filing of SDLT returns but this seems unlikely.”
The Q&A poses a series of questions firms might ask of themselves and any external provider should they be interested in outsourcing, including what and where liabilities lie in the event of error, their own registration status, how the service is delivered (automated and/or any guarantees around the calculation), and to what extent outsourcing cedes control.
On the latest Today’s Conveyancer podcast, guest Ryan Hannah of SDLT assessment and calculation platform Compass, shared his concerns about the choices firms are making around outsourcing complex SDLT matters. He suggests it’s often the routine, everyday transactions rather than the ‘sprawling country piles’ that are the real breeding ground for costly mistakes; a point the Q&A acknowledges in a question about how to identify complex SDLT issues, given “HMRC has not provided any definitive set of questions that can establish whether specialist advice is required”.
Also speaking on the podcast, Ian Quayle, CEO of IQ Legal Training, suggested registration is not only administratively burdensome, but also runs the risk of creating a dangerous mismatch between what conveyancers are and what clients may now assume them to be. The potential for negligence claims, client confusion and professional overreach looms large, he warned.
Evans concluded: “We are aware some residential conveyancing members are uncertain about what might be involved and whether they should consider outsourcing their Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) obligations”. The Q&A will help members to prepare ahead of the expected registration start date of 18th May, he added.
One Response
This new regime should unsettle every property lawyer.
The new HMRC tax‑adviser registration regime exposes a policy landscape that is becoming increasingly incoherent for those of us working in conveyancing. Government is adopting a distinctly Janus‑like posture. The Treasury is demanding ever‑greater layers of red tape, while the Housing Secretary continues to champion a high‑volume market built on commoditised conveyancing. These instincts cannot be reconciled.
We have seen this elsewhere. Leasehold reform is riddled with internal contradictions and unresolved tensions. The same pattern is now emerging here of bold regulatory gestures with little regard for operational reality or the constitutional position of the legal profession.
Poorly conceived registration requirements, once established, can be weaponised. They risk eroding the independence of a branch of the legal profession whose ability to practise should never depend on the shifting priorities of the Treasury. That is a constitutional red line.
Those who still believe conveyancing can be pushed onto a production line, into factory‑style operations with minimal supervision, have forgotten that property law cannot be practised in a vacuum. It is rooted in an understanding of the wider legal and financial ecosystem.
For now, firms must act. Terms of business need urgent revision to make it absolutely clear that taxation advice and especially complex SDLT analysis is excluded. But from a jurisprudential standpoint, even this is a significant ask. We are being forced to redraw the boundaries of our retainer because government policy refuses to do so coherently. Think ‘Smart Motorways’
So conveyancers must protect themselves, and must continue to speak plainly about the constitutional and professional risks now emerging at a ludicrous pace.