As HMRC remains steadfast in its insistence conveyancers must register as tax advisers in the face of ongoing objections, the Law Society of England and Wales has shared its own detailed guidance to help conveyancers approach the changes. With the confusion showing no sign of abating with just days to go to the registration commencement, stamp duty specialist Compass sets out the relevant case law and offers context to help conveyancers make informed choices.
The Law Society has published a Q&A on mandatory tax adviser registration ahead of the 18th May 2026 commencement date. As compliance signposting, it is useful. However, it risks being read as something more than it is.
This is not the arrival of a new duty. The obligation on conveyancers in relation to tax has been established for decades. What the regime introduces is visibility and, with it, a shift in how the market will operate. Against that backdrop, the real question is not whether firms register, but what happens next.
What the Q&A settles
There are three points that firms should treat as established, regardless of how the finer technical arguments develop.
First, firms interacting with HMRC in connection with SDLT will need to register. The Q&A adopts a broad interpretation, capturing both the submission of returns and the payment of SDLT.
Second, solicitors without specialist tax knowledge should not advise beyond their competence. In higher risk matters, referral to a specialist is expected rather than optional.
Third, the Q&A reinforces existing guidance on scope. Where tax forms part of the retainer, the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill applies. Any limitation on that scope must be clear, in writing, and properly brought to the client’s attention.
The payment point
The legislation defines interaction with HMRC as communication or filing. On a strict reading, payment alone does neither. A transfer of funds does not in itself amount to communication or submission.
In practice, that distinction is unlikely to carry weight. HMRC has already indicated through stakeholder engagement that payment will be treated as interaction, and firms should plan on that basis. Whatever the technical merits of a narrower interpretation, most conveyancing practices will fall within scope regardless of how the SDLT function is structured.
Registration is not regulation
Registration creates a compliance gate. It establishes a register of firms interacting with HMRC, sets minimum standards, and allows HMRC to exclude firms that fall below those standards.
The underlying duty remains governed by the retainer, the relevant regulatory framework, and established case law. Registration does not expand that duty or alter its content. What it does is make the exercise of that duty more visible, both to HMRC and, potentially, to clients.
A long-established duty
The legal position on tax duties in conveyancing is not new and does not begin with this regime.
From Hurlingham Estates Ltd v Wilde & Partners onwards, the courts have been clear that a solicitor must either advise on tax implications or refer the client to a specialist. That principle predates SDLT itself.
It was extended in Credit Lyonnais SA v Russell Jones & Walker, where the court confirmed that risks identified in the course of a retainer must be pointed out, even if they fall outside its strict scope. The position was refined in Minkin v Landsberg, which made clear that advice reasonably incidental to the retainer is still part of the duty, unless properly limited.
More recently, Lewis v Cunningtons Solicitors demonstrated that generic disclaimers will not be effective where the substance of the work brings the duty into play.
Taken together, these cases establish a consistent position. Competence, or referral to someone with that competence, has always been required.
What the regime is addressing
The registration regime exists because SDLT does not operate cleanly as a self assessment tax at the scale and complexity at which it is administered.
More than one million transactions each year require returns, many involving detailed analysis across reliefs, surcharges, linked transactions and other technical provisions. In practice, a large proportion of this work is carried out by non specialists.
The consequences are visible. A repayment agent market has developed to correct errors after the event. Professional indemnity claims arising from SDLT mistakes are a regular feature of the conveyancing landscape. The Law Society’s own guidance now explicitly directs firms to refer more complex matters.
Registration addresses the symptom by introducing a minimum standards gate. It does not resolve the underlying issue of how the work should be delivered.
A structural shift
Conveyancing has moved in this direction before. Functions that were once handled in house have gradually migrated to specialist providers as they became more technical, more regulated, or both.
Title searches, identity verification, anti money laundering checks and lender compliance all followed that path. SDLT now appears to be doing the same.
The combined effect of case law, regulatory messaging and the new registration framework is to force a decision that has, until now, often been avoided. Firms must consider whether SDLT can realistically continue as an in house function without specialist resource.
For a small number of firms, the answer will be yes. For most, it is likely to be no.
The practical question for firms
Set against that context, the practical decision becomes clearer.
Some firms will invest in genuine in house SDLT capability, supported by appropriate training, supervision and audit processes. That position is coherent, but it requires resource and pricing discipline.
Others will continue with existing approaches, accepting the risk that the gap between expected standards and actual delivery becomes harder to defend if challenged.
Many will look to specialist support, retaining control of the client relationship while placing technical work with providers better equipped to handle it.
The bigger picture
The Law Society Q&A is a useful piece of guidance, but it does not change the underlying duty. That duty has been in place for nearly thirty years.
What has changed is the context in which it operates. Registration, professional guidance and market pressure are converging on a single issue: how SDLT is delivered at scale within a profession that is not structured around tax specialism.
Firms that approach this as a structural question, rather than simply a compliance exercise, are likely to be better placed for what follows.
About the author
Compass provides specialist Stamp Duty Land Tax services to property professionals, ranging from risk screening to fully outsourced SDLT handling. Its Concierge service includes assessment, expert indemnified calculation, client liaison, and HMRC submission.
