header-logo header-logo

17 June 2021
Categories: Legal News , Tax , Insurance / reinsurance , Profession
printer mail-detail

LNB News: Law Society response: HMRC consultation on raising standards in the tax advice market

Responding to HMRC’s consultation on raising standards in the tax advice market, the Law Society supports the principle of mandatory professional indemnity insurance (PII) for anyone who provides tax advice, so long as the new regime does not create additional burdens for regulated professionals who are already subject to minimum PII requirements.

Lexis®Library update: The changes proposed by HMRC were intended to:

  • improve standards for professional tax advisers
  • provide consumers with greater protections
  • boost confidence in tax advice

The Law Society agrees that introduction of a requirement for anyone providing tax advice to have professional indemnity insurance would satisfy the policy aims of improving trust in the tax advice market, by targeting poor behaviour and allowing taxpayers greater redress when things go wrong.

The Law Society recommends that, further to the requirement for tax advisers to maintain PII at a level determined by HMRC, there should also be transparency rules, which would ensure that consumers have accurate and relevant information about a tax adviser when they are considering purchasing tax advice. This should help members of the public and small businesses make informed choices, improving competition in the tax advice market.

The Law Society supports HMRC’s intentions and believes that, properly implemented, a requirement for all tax advisers to carry a minimum level of cover should achieve its objectives. However, there are already large numbers of tax advisers who are members of regulated professions, including solicitors, who are already subject to minimum requirements for PII and many additional checks on their activities.

The Law Society is concerned to make sure that, if HMRC does bring in mandatory PII, the new regime will not create any additional burdens on regulated professionals whose existing obligations meet or exceed the new requirements.

See Simon’s TaxesA1.803

Source: HMRC consultation on raising standards in the tax advice market – Law Society response

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 16 June 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll