In case you missed it, last week’s Autumn Budget included a few paragraphs on ‘closing the tax gap’. Among them, it noted that the government was publishing a summary of responses to the recent consultation Raising standards in the tax advice market: strengthening the regulatory framework and improving registration, saying that it is still ‘considering options to strengthen the regulatory framework of the tax advice market.’
In fact, it was on the same day - Budget Day – that the government published its summary of responses to the consultation, reaching a few conclusions, but kicking the can down the road in other areas. The consultation was open between 26 March and 29 May this year, and Compliance for Accountants was pleased to provide its own response.
It is encouraging to read that the government seems to be serious about closing the tax gap, and that it will be (in its own words) ‘bearing down on tax non-compliance’. This includes, in the first instance, requiring tax practitioners who interact with HMRC to register by April 2026 (with more details to look forward to in the 2025 Budget).
It also states that the failure, by some tax practitioners, to meet professional standards ‘undermines confidence in high quality tax practitioners’, and I see this as an acknowledgement that it is in the public interest that consumers – clients, potential clients and others in need of support – can easily identify professionals in whom they can place their trust.
So what are the outcomes of the consultation? In short, the government is responding by:
mandating registration of tax advisers interacting with HMRC (from April 2026);
introducing a requirement for tax advisers to obtain an advanced electronic signature from their clients if they wish to use the nominations process for certain tax repayments;
planning to consult (early next year) on enhanced powers and sanctions for HMRC in respect of tax advisers who facilitate taxpayer non-compliance; and
considering options to strengthen the broader regulatory framework in the tax advice market.
While planning to consult on enhanced powers and sanctions, the government is also clear that it would like to do more to prevent issues arising in the first place by ‘strengthening the current partial regulatory framework for tax practitioners’. In this respect, it estimates that around one third of tax practitioners in the UK are unaffiliated to a professional body, and so can practise with little or no oversight. But, although the main question in the last consultation was whether to mandate membership of a professional body, it feels to me that we are not much further forward in achieving an answer.
In total, there were 426 written responses to the consultation. The analysis of those responses shows that most respondents answered only some of the questions posed, which is disappointing. Choosing to answer some questions and not others might imply that self-interest is at play, which is perhaps unsurprising. So let’s try to pick the bones out of the published summary.
First, it is important to take onboard the point that ‘Many respondents noted that increased regulation could be expensive to businesses and costs might be passed on to clients.’ This point of view is unsurprising, as proportionality is a fundamental principle of good regulation and any consultation outcome must be subject to a cost/benefit analysis. That analysis must be applied to each of the three alternative approaches set out in the consultation with reference to a fourth alternative, which is to do nothing.
Of the three approaches, mandatory membership of a recognised professional body was ‘considered by the greatest number of respondents to be the approach most likely to fulfil the objectives set out in the consultation’, although it appears those not currently affiliated to a professional body tend to favour regulation by a government body. There are some practical reasons for this, including possible barriers to professional body membership.
But practical problems can, with due care, be overcome, and the regulation of accountants (including tax practitioners) by a government body does not, in my view, provide a suitable solution or a level playing field. According to the consultation outcome, ‘members of professional bodies tended to argue that there was little systematic monitoring or enforcement action taken against unaffiliated tax practitioners’ and (by way of example) several professional bodies noted that ‘anti-money laundering supervision of unaffiliated practitioners [by HMRC] was seen as insufficient’. Although the recent OPBAS report on AML supervision by the professional bodies seemed vaguely critical (and lacking in the transparency needed to be able to reach meaningful conclusions), the latest Treasury report on AML supervision would appear to support this view.
A current problem, which surely needs to be addressed (as noted by some respondents), is that ‘even where qualified members of professional bodies were removed from their professional body for failing to meet certain standards, they were still able to practise as an unaffiliated practitioner.’ It was also noted that mandatory membership of a professional body might be difficult to enforce - particularly in respect of tax advisers who would avoid a direct relationship with HMRC, or who would engage with HMRC using their clients’ credentials. With these issues in mind, as some respondents pointed out, there is merit in the suggestion that titles such as ‘accountant’ and/or ‘tax practitioner’ should be protected in statute. This would move the focus from regulating all tax practitioners to enabling stakeholders to easily identify regulated and unregulated professionals.
Conclusion
I am hopeful that the next round of consultation does, indeed, take place early in 2025, and that the outcomes are published in a timely manner. But consultation should consider recognising one or more terms (such as ‘accountant’) in statute, which would remove the need for a tax practitioner to be affiliated to a professional body while enabling members of the public to identify qualified and regulated ‘accountants’. Given that many people already believe that the term ‘accountant’ is protected in law (and it would be difficult to change that way of thinking), protection of the term ‘accountant’ may not be such a radical change as one might think.
Comentários