Tax Adviser Registration Rules: A Double-Edged Sword for the Property Market?
HMRC has just dropped a bombshell for anyone involved in tax-related matters, and it’s sending ripples through the property and legal sectors. In a move that’s both clarifying and controversial, HMRC has published its updated guidance on who needs to register as a tax adviser—and the rules are far-reaching. But here’s where it gets controversial: even if you don’t consider yourself a tax adviser, you might still be required to register.
Starting May 18, any business that interacts with HMRC on someone else’s tax affairs—whether by phone, email, post, or through the GOV.UK website—and receives payment for doing so must register for an agent services account. This includes submitting returns, claims, or other documents. The guidance is crystal clear: “You’ll need to register even if you do not view yourself as a tax adviser, or describe your work as tax advice.”
For smaller firms with five or fewer employees, every individual must register as a ‘relevant individual,’ regardless of whether they provide tax services. Larger firms with six or more employees must register all ‘relevant individuals,’ including officers involved in tax adviser activities and anyone playing a ‘significant role’ in managing tax-related work. And here’s a twist: if a firm has fewer than five people handling these activities, they must nominate additional individuals to meet the minimum requirement.
Every firm or sole trader registering must also prove they’re supervised for anti-money laundering (AML), though individuals are exempt from this requirement. Businesses with outstanding tax returns or unpaid taxes not covered by a payment plan will be barred from registering.
Sean Swimby, director at SCA Tax, emphasizes the purpose behind these rules: “This is ultimately about ensuring appropriate oversight and professional standards when dealing with tax.” However, the guidance hasn’t been without criticism.
And this is the part most people miss: Legal regulators argue that the rules impose significant operational burdens without clear benefits to consumers. Simon Law, chair of the Society of Licensed Conveyancers (SLC), warns that the model risks overwhelming compliant legal practices with disproportionate administrative obligations. Sheila Kumar, chief executive of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), is equally disappointed, pointing out that conveyancers who don’t provide tax advice but handle SDLT submissions on behalf of clients are unfairly caught in the net.
Lidia Quinlan of Compass highlights a critical oversight: “Taking advice on an SDLT calculation does not transfer responsibility. If the firm remains the submitting adviser, it remains accountable for the tax position.” She urges firms to review their processes well ahead of implementation to avoid disruptions.
George Bould of SDLT Check agrees, suggesting that while the rules aren’t cause for alarm, they’re a wake-up call to scrutinize existing practices. He’s also sought clarity from HMRC on how outsourcing tax advice and submissions affects registration requirements—a question many firms are likely asking.
But here’s the bigger question: Is this a step toward better regulation, or a bureaucratic maze that slows down the property market? HMRC’s guidance aims to raise standards, but critics argue it’s a sledgehammer approach that fails to distinguish between true tax advisers and those merely handling administrative tasks.
For high-volume conveyancing firms, this could spell trouble. As one commentator notes, “You cannot meaningfully ‘speed up’ the system while layering on obligations that slow it down.” The property market operates at the intersection of tax, AML, and consumer protection—and when one area tightens, the entire ecosystem feels the strain.
So, what’s your take? Are these rules a necessary safeguard, or an overreach that complicates an already complex system? Let us know in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
