Joy Bassett explores the scope of the Finance (No.2) Bill and whether the legislative definition meets policy objectives, and suggests viable alternatives to a catch-all ‘tax adviser’ category.
The Finance (No. 2) Bill proposes a mandatory registration regime for those defined as tax advisers interacting with HMRC on behalf of clients. The policy objective is understandable. Raising standards in the tax advice market and addressing risks associated with unregulated intermediaries are legitimate goals.
However, the current drafting raises an important question of statutory scope. In particular, it appears capable of capturing regulated legal professionals whose involvement with HMRC arises not from participation in the tax advisory market, but from routine transactional functions carried out within established professional frameworks.
Legislative definition v policy objective
Conveyancers commonly facilitate submission of SDLT returns as part of property transactions. Probate practitioners similarly interact with HMRC in connection with inheritance tax reporting during estate administration. In both contexts, the underlying tax regime operates on a self-assessment basis, with legal liability resting with the taxpayer rather than the professional submitting the form.
These practitioners do not generally hold themselves out as tax advisers. Their regulators require clear communication to clients where specialist tax advice may be necessary, and their professional indemnity frameworks are structured around legal services rather than tax advisory mandates. The question therefore becomes whether the legislative definition aligns with the policy objective it seeks to achieve.
A question of consistency
Schedule 20 of the bill already demonstrates parliament’s willingness to adopt targeted exemptions where intermediary roles are considered sufficiently controlled or low-risk. Categories such as VAT representatives, customs agents and certain corporate structures have been recognised as operating within regulatory environments that make additional registration unnecessary. This raises a legitimate question as to whether routine legal administration within regulated practice should be treated consistently.
There is also a potential consumer dimension. If the proposed register is made public in pursuit of transparency objectives, search engines and third-party directories are likely to republish its contents. This may result in solicitors and conveyancers appearing online as tax advisers notwithstanding the limited and administrative nature of their role in many transactions. Such misdescription risks creating confusion about the scope of professional services and, in turn, disputes about responsibility where tax outcomes prove contentious.
An alternative approach
None of this suggests that standards in the tax advice market should not be strengthened. Rather, it highlights the importance of ensuring that legislative mechanisms are proportionate and accurately targeted. Where professionals are already subject to statutory regulation, AML supervision and compulsory insurance, duplication of oversight may not advance the policy objective.
If the government considers that interaction with HMRC in transactional contexts should remain within scope, an alternative approach may be to adopt terminology that more accurately reflects the function being performed. Classifications such as ‘HMRC agent’ or ‘registered intermediary’ would avoid conflating administrative filing roles with specialist tax advisory services.
The broader issue is one of legislative coherence. Effective regulation depends not only on identifying risk, but on ensuring that definitions capture the intended market without inadvertently extending into areas already governed by robust professional frameworks.
Opportunity for change
As the bill moves through its remaining stages, there is a clear opportunity for practitioners, professional bodies and policymakers to engage constructively with the detail of its drafting. Clarifying the intended scope of the regime and ensuring that terminology accurately reflects professional roles will help support the government’s objective of raising standards while avoiding unintended consequences. Thoughtful engagement at this stage may prevent confusion, duplication and dispute later.
Practitioners wishing to contribute their experience or views are encouraged to engage through their representative bodies or directly with the consultation and legislative process while refinement remains possible.
About the author
Joy Bassett is practice manager at A P Bassett Solicitors, a high street law firm specialising in residential conveyancing, wills and probate. She is actively engaged in national policy discussions relating to home buying and selling reform, regulatory change and professional practice.
