How can we regulate the tax profession better?

Rather than increasing the policing of the majority of honest agents who, like me, see ourselves as gatekeepers ensuring our clients pay the correct amount of tax, HMRC could concentrate on the dodgy agents - I am sure they know who those are.
If they don't know then all they need to do is reopen local offices.

Forget the Agents for a minute ... and concentrate on the 2 immutable protagonists: unrepresented taxpayers and HMRC.

The former (even if inclined to 'pay their fair whack' - which is not a universal starting point) are extremely price-sensitive - all the more so since they tend to feel that paying to get their tax returns completed is akin to bring charged an admin fee on top of the penalty (aka the tax) - so anything that adds to those costs drives them back into the optimistic guesswork of DiY.

The latter, although reluctant to admit it, suffer a far greater 'shortfall' in tax collection the further up the food-chain one travels in terms of turnover & profits.

It's not the £1k'ish underpayments (whatever their volume) encountered by the majority of multi-job employees and home-based sole traders that is the problem ... it's those who operate companies based on morally fraudulent precepts (whether that involves data manipulation, bending the rules for various govt sponsored schemes or simply using the 'big boys' to hide things behind smoke & mirrors overseas).

Although I've met some horrendously incompetent (and sometimes downright devious) agents in the unqualified/unregulated sector, I've also met every bit as bad hiding behind the badge of respectability of a PC ... and you only have to read the headlines about KPMG/PWC/et al to see how unreliable a guarantee is evinced by dealing with those of Chartered status.

Of course the vast majority of both types of 'agent' are honest, diligent and over-worked ... but adding to their burdens (and thus to the benighted taxpayer) is to miss the target by a country mile.

Sort out HMRC (resources, skills & technology), and preferably simplify the tax system itself, and you just might find that it all regulates itself ... at least to the point where malfeasance sticks out like a sore thumb.

I recently had an AML visit. I am CIOT. I asked about this and wondered why some PBs require a Practising Certificate and most don't. Sometimes I see people who are looking for Freelancers require Freelancers to have Practising Certificates and wonder why this should be.

It doesn't, however, cover those who are not registered with a PB. I have worded this carefully as you could have passed the exams but chosen not to renew your subscription with a PB.

Thanks for the opinion, Peter Sproat, "Tax Crime Fellow" from "TaxWatch" and Northumbria University. Whatever all of that means. I will give your opinion all the credit and weight it deserves.

The last thing we need is more burdens being placed on us, with yet more costs, to try and root out the very very small minority who run these schemes.

Perhaps a better solution would be to imbed a few HMRC staff in the largest firms so they hear about the latest schemes and promoters and can take action.

A lot of people don't want to 'belong' to a professional body as they are perceived as not representing the smaller practice at all, as well as demanding ever increasing fees on top of money for the 'privilege' of AML monitoring (probably the biggest waste of time and money for little to zero benefit).

Rather, they should concentrate on training HMRC to professional standards: have them train for and sit the CIOT exams if they are dealing with taxation.

I am not convinced that regulation will achieve anything until those who are currently completely unregulated are brought into a regulated regime and that the regulated regime that they are brought into at least matches that currently in place with the various professional bodies regulating the activities of their members.
There will always be the saloon bar advisors, causing a lot of low level nonsense, who are never picked up and tax payers who simply tell lies about their tax affairs and presumably everything else. I am sure that we would all like to see more effort from HMRC ensuring proper compliance before bringing in regulation which, as matters stand, will only really benefit jobsworths, clipboard manufacturers and purveyors of red pens.

The interesting take might be to ask how many of those currently peddling such schemes who are currently not members of professional bodies were originally members of such professional bodies, I suspect most?

I strongly suspect that few who have never been either an Advocate/Barrister, Solicitor, Accountant with one of the main bodies or a CTA peddle/market any schemes.

The issue accordingly is really not one of regulated/non regulated, I for instance , never having achieved ICAS qualification, am obviously not knowledgeable enough about tax to even devise any tax schemes.

In fact I might put forward "A Modest Proposal" that those who are QBE are the least likely to market perceived abusive schemes and accordingly the profession and the Exchequer would be better safeguarded if nobody was qualified.

Part of the problem IMO is poor targeting by the professional bodies.

In the past 17 years I've had nine visits from my beloved ACCA covering; monitoring, AML, CPD, approved employer, audit etc. I've had four since 2018, all satisfactory.

My local rival a few doors away has seen them once in 23 years - a failed AML visit last year being the first since a failed monitoring visit in 2020.

I recall from my auditing days that we planned more detailed procedures for higher risk areas, so I'm wondering why the ACCA don't seem to and instead, continuously check compliant firms.

Also as a point of interest, several of our previous staff who were found to be not up to the job, left to set up as unregulated businesses.

I joined the profession in 1969 and retired in 2019, not because I was past it but on account of the cost of PI cover, AML overkill, and a growing apptite for interfering regulation by my 3 professional bodies. I saw my role as knowing the answers to clients' questions after reformulating them so that both were right.

I did not see it as my role to police their morality as dictated by the Great and Good. Legislation to charge tax should not be invested with some spurious social engineering dimension. The Government can propose any kind of tax charge it wishes and its fundamental role is to get its tax legislation right. If it wants to tax oranges it should not blackguard those who invest in apples; and certainly not, with HMRC and the "tax avoidance is a sin" brigade, say that apples are caught because they are "all just fruit", so apple owners are just wicked enemies of the people.

Of course those who are minded to embark upon tax avoidance must be advised of the possible reputational repercussions. as these holier than thou pundits are de facto part of the risk assessment. In fact I spent most of my time advising on the least worst choice of route and the unexpected terrifying consequences of bad legislation (see the two Lobler cases in the FTT and UT).

In my view professional bodies are far too sycophantic and pusillanimous in their relationship with the Government, as the moralistic PRCT's tax planning section and the SRA's fatwa about SDLT demonstrate. Hence my decision in 2019 to immediately and joyously terminate my membership of all my 3 craven sanctimonious regulators, ICAEW CIOT and SRA.

Such bodies can and should protect clients from bad advisers but it is not their function to dictate what advice clients should seek from and be given by good advisers in order to cosy up to the Illuminati. The idea that HMG or HMRC should regulate good advisers (and decide who are and are not such) is as ludicrous as Uti-Puti supervising human rights and war crimes.

Here we go again . If it's not about plugging useless MTD software , someone has to write about ''regulating the profession'', opening with the classic 'IF'. { No slur to Rudyard Kipling }.
Clearly the article spells out more time , administration - and costs . And no doubt a new Quango enjoying the financial - and other -benefits of playing God. But for what ? Does anyone believe a so called ''effective system'' will wipe out the rogues within the profession.
One line in this article sticks out............PROMOTERS OF TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES ARE ALMOST NEVER MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANCY BODIES. But this ALMOST rhetoric is ACCORDING TO HMRC and we all know what HMRC statistics mean. I would suggest the ALMOST goes the other way and which reaffirms - what's the bloody point ?
Ian McTernan has succinctly summarised what is needed.One further point should be input by HMRC into resurrecting their practice [ when tax offices with District Inspectors existed ] of keeping little black books of the rogues on their patch. It's not just avoidance shemes which need looking at.
I confess to not having heard of the author's professional title beforehand but I write as a decent fellow AGAINST crime as far as tax is concerned and a fan of BBC's ''Springwatch''.

The R&D tax relief industry has definitely had more than its fair share of issues, and as yet, there doesn't seem to be a particularly neat solution.

In our view, the problem within the R&D scheme needs to be addressed by more positive means. We believe that most people working in the area want to improve and excel - it's just that there's historically been very little training and support for people working in this very niche area.

Our hope is that a solution to low standards is going to be a blend of Government-led compliance initiatives combined with the industry coming together voluntarily around a shared set of values and knowledge.

Disappointing to see such an unbalanced and naive (almost wet behind the ears) approach to the current issues of tax evasion.....almost as if the 'tax crime fellow' has never worked at a small firm or within a one man band where making mistakes/technical errors (in client and revenue favour) are the high risk issues compared to creating some elaborate scheme to evade tax.

This is only shamefully trumped by the Revenues inability to target fraudulent businesses leaching the system for personal gain through repayment claims made by the thousand from singular businesses and elaborate schemes supported by high profile barristers and big four firms....

Dr, Carpet bombing the tax profession will only isolate those previously onboard to push the boundaries....as for the big boys.....they will continue as they are.....as they will employee people, and their money to 'deal' with this type of approach......

Thanks for this contribution to the debate Peter. The proposal of mine to which you refer at the start of your article was part of an interview with Rebecca Cave. My replies to her questions were based on my comments in a much more detailed article I had written for Taxation magazine. In it I examined the background to the desire for more regulation, the objectives to be achieved and, in my view, the only logical options (which I repeated in my interview with Rebecca). I can supply the original Taxation article if it's of interest.

Firstly, it is not helpful to have an article that includes both Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance. They are not the same and should not be considered within the same discussion.

Secondly, and perhaps I am naïve, the majority of taxpayers pay the tax they are due without question - even where they don't think it is fair (I tell them tax will never be fair!).

Thirdly, the tax administration is biased towards HMRC and I see and hear about a fair share of abuses by HMRC.

Perhaps if we held everyone to account, including HMRC, we might see some change across the board.

Firstly, it is not helpful to have an article that includes both Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance. They are not the same and should not be considered within the same discussion.

Secondly, and perhaps I am naïve, the majority of taxpayers pay the tax they are due without question - even where they don't think it is fair (I tell them tax will never be fair!).

Thirdly, the tax administration is biased towards HMRC and I see and hear about a fair share of abuses by HMRC.

Perhaps if we held everyone to account, including HMRC, we might see some change across the board.

I agree!