Conveyancers have been explicitly named as falling within the scope of HMRC’s mandatory tax adviser registration regime during proceedings of the Finance Bill Committee.
During committee scrutiny of the bill, Dan Tomlinson, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, set out the government’s position and specified conveyancers will be required to register with HMRC when interacting on behalf of clients.
Introducing the provisions, he told the committee:
“…anyone paid to interact with HMRC on behalf of clients – for example, by submitting tax returns or other information to HMRC – will fall within scope of the requirement to register.”
The business and individuals required to register, he added, include:
“…chartered accountants, bookkeepers, payroll specialists and conveyancers who interact on behalf of taxpayers for stamp duty land tax.”
“These remarks remove any ambiguity about whether conveyancers submitting SDLT returns fall within scope,” said Ryan Hannah, managing director at specialist SDLT service Compass.
“Conveyancers were not referenced indirectly or by implication but were named explicitly as a profession captured by the legislation…
“For the conveyancing sector, the message from parliament is clear. Conveyancers have been explicitly named, the policy is advancing, and there is no sign that this requirement is going away.”
The Society of Licensed Conveyancers (SLC) has raised serious concerns over the proposals and warns the move risks consumer confusion, market disruption and unnecessary duplication of regulation.
The SLC has written directly to the chancellor to urge the government to reconsider the proposal and to exclude licensed conveyancers from its scope, making clear conveyancers are not tax advisers, are not authorised to give tax advice, and act solely as agents when submitting SDLT returns as part of the conveyancing process.
“The proposed approach would nonetheless capture licensed conveyancers, despite the fact that they are specialist property lawyers regulated by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) and already subject to a robust and comprehensive regulatory regime,” the SLC said.
SLC chair Simon Law added:
“Licensed conveyancers are not tax advisers and are not permitted to provide tax advice. Requiring them to register as tax advisers simply because they submit SDLT returns on behalf of clients is misleading, unnecessary, and fundamentally misunderstands their role.”
Although the government has suggested the measure is “not the same as regulating tax advice” and that HMRC will not assess qualifications, advice quality, or professional conduct, the SLC warns that mandatory registration as a tax adviser will “inevitably create a false impression for consumers and blurs long-established regulatory boundaries.”
Law added:
“We have made our concerns clear to the chancellor. This proposal risks confusing consumers about the role of conveyancers and undermines the clarity of the existing regulatory framework. Licensed conveyancers are already tightly regulated by the CLC, and there is no justification for duplicating regulation where no problem has been identified.”
The new requirement is scheduled to take effect on 1 May 2026, with official guidance yet to be published.
The limited lead-in period presents serious operational challenges for conveyancers, the SLC said, increasing the risk of transaction delays and threatening the smooth functioning of the housing market.
“With so little time to prepare and no guidance available, this policy creates real uncertainty for conveyancers and their clients,” Law said.
“Any disruption to the conveyancing process ultimately affects home buyers and sellers.
“If the government’s objective is to improve tax compliance, this proposal misses the mark.
“We strongly urge HM Treasury to reconsider this approach and to exclude licensed conveyancers from the tax adviser registration requirement before it causes unnecessary confusion and disruption.”
2 responses
The Finance Bill Committee’s confirmation that conveyancers are to be treated as “tax advisers” is not an isolated policy choice. It is another sign of an administration blundering through the most intricate areas of property law without appreciating the consequences of its own interventions.
We have crippling AML red tape, a new commonhold regime promoted faster than it is understood, the attempted diversion of client account interest into Treasury coffers, and running through it all, a belief that digital speed can replace professionalism.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continues to push a build, baby, build agenda, even as the Treasury imposes AML obligations that slow transactions, increase liability, and complicate the very process that turns permissions into completions. Two departments, one sector, and entirely opposing directions of travel. The unintended consequences are now serious.
By designating conveyancers as tax advisers, the state has quietly expanded the scope of what the courts may expect us to understand, explain, and supervise. Conveyancing has never operated in a vacuum, but this change hardens the legal expectation that practitioners — including the unsupervised staff in high‑volume conveyancing factories — must now grasp tax law well enough to avoid negligence. For many of those models, built on delegation and minimal oversight, this is not an inconvenience. It is an existential risk.
We are watching policymakers attempt to re‑engineer the foundations of property law without understanding the structure they are altering. Property lawyers must unite to stop this conveyancing vandalism.
This is utter nonsense. Conveyancers should not have to wear the hat of the tax advisors. Conveyancers are not qualified to give tax advice. This imposes so many risks and as a result, so many Conveyancers will leave this profession. So many have already left conveyancing, because it’s just become a joke now!
Government should not interfere in something they have no experience in! They get away with not paying tax and we have to take the beat! How does this work?! This is utterly disgraceful!!!