Does helping with SDLT refund claims make a business a tax adviser under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017?

Introduction

Businesses that help people recover overpaid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) sometimes face a difficult regulatory question: are they simply carrying out administrative claims work, or are they providing tax advice and therefore falling within the anti-money laundering (AML) regime?

This matters because the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 can require certain businesses to register for AML supervision. A business that is merely collecting facts, preparing paperwork and submitting a reclaim may argue that it is outside the definition of a tax adviser. HMRC may look closely at what the business actually does in practice, especially where it assesses eligibility, calculates refunds or charges contingent fees.

The Question

The underlying issue was raised in correspondence between HMRC and a business that assists clients with retrospective SDLT refund claims. HMRC asked how the business distinguishes between general guidance and regulated tax advice, how it decides whether a customer may be due a refund, how its fees are calculated, whether there are cases where no fee is charged, and how it identifies refund opportunities.

The business position was that it does not advise on SDLT planning for future transactions, does not handle client money, and only assists with claims for completed transactions where a client already believes a refund may be due. It said its role is administrative: gathering evidence, referring clients to HMRC guidance, using HMRC tools to estimate figures, and submitting claims to HMRC.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s explanation was that the business draws a line between:

• general signposting to HMRC guidance and calculators, and
• formal tax advice on how to structure a transaction or reduce SDLT before completion.

In anonymised form, his position was:

“I do not offer professional advice or engage in financial transactions with clients. My role involves providing generic, publicly available HMRC guidance and administering SDLT refund claims on behalf of clients.”

He said clients approach the business because they already believe they may have overpaid SDLT. The business then gathers factual information, points them to HMRC guidance, and uses HMRC’s SDLT calculator to estimate whether a reclaim may be available. If the client wishes to proceed, the business prepares and submits the reclaim.

Nick also explained that fees are contingent on success. In the example given, fees were calculated as a percentage of the refund recovered plus VAT, with no fee if no refund is obtained. He said that where a case appears to require actual tax advice rather than administration, the client is referred elsewhere to a suitably qualified and insured adviser.

His regulatory argument was that this kind of retrospective SDLT reclaim work is not the same as advising on a person’s wider tax affairs. He relied on the wording of the 2017 Regulations and argued that the business does not provide “material aid, or assistance or advice” in the sense intended by the definition of a tax adviser, because it is not carrying out broader tax compliance, tax planning, or ongoing tax management work.

The Law

The relevant legislation is the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

Regulation 8 identifies the categories of “relevant persons” who fall within the regulated sector for AML purposes.

Regulation 11(d) includes tax advisers. The definition is important. In substance, it covers a firm or sole practitioner who by way of business provides material aid, assistance or advice in connection with the tax affairs of other persons.

That wording is deliberately broad. It is not limited to chartered tax advisers or accountants. A business can potentially fall within the definition if, in practice, it helps others deal with their tax position in a substantive way.

Regulation 18(1) requires a relevant person to identify and assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing to which its business is subject. That provision is about risk assessment once a person is within scope. It does not itself decide whether a business is inside or outside the regulated sector in the first place.

In SDLT matters, the underlying tax rules are found principally in the Finance Act 2003. Depending on the reclaim being considered, the relevant issue may involve:

• whether the property was residential or mixed-use,
• whether a relief such as Multiple Dwellings Relief applied,
• whether the higher rates for additional dwellings were correctly charged, or
• whether the dwelling was unsuitable for use as a dwelling at the effective date of transaction.

On that last issue, the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. A property will not be treated as unsuitable for use as a dwelling merely because it needs repair or modernisation. The defects must be serious enough to take the property outside the category of a dwelling for SDLT purposes.

Analysis

The central AML question is not what label a business gives itself. It is what the business actually does.

Step by step, the analysis usually looks like this.

1. Is the business dealing with another person’s tax affairs?

   If a business is reviewing a completed land transaction, considering whether too much SDLT was paid, and preparing a reclaim to HMRC, it is plainly operating in the field of another person’s tax affairs.

2. Is it providing only clerical administration, or something more?

   Purely clerical work may be outside the tax adviser definition in some cases. For example, simply typing information into a form from instructions already settled elsewhere is different from analysing facts against legislation and HMRC practice.

3. Is the business making a judgement on eligibility?

   If the business gathers facts, compares them with HMRC guidance, identifies which relief or reclaim route may apply, estimates the refund and decides whether a claim should be submitted, that begins to look like material assistance in relation to tax.

4. Does it matter that the client first believes a refund may be due?

   Not necessarily. A client’s initial belief does not prevent the business from giving assistance or advice. If the business then tests that belief against the law and helps turn it into a formal reclaim, HMRC may still regard that as tax adviser activity.

5. Does using HMRC guidance or HMRC’s calculator avoid the issue?

   No. Many advisers use HMRC guidance and HMRC tools. The question is whether the business is applying those materials to a client’s facts in a way that amounts to substantive help with a tax position.

6. Does not handling client money take the business outside AML scope?

   Again, no. Handling client money may affect risk, but it is not the basic test for whether a business is a tax adviser under Regulation 11(d).

7. Do contingent fees matter?

   Contingent fees do not by themselves determine AML status. But a success-fee model based on identifying and pursuing SDLT refunds may reinforce the view that the business is actively assisting with tax claims rather than merely offering neutral administrative support.

Applying that analysis to the explanation given, there are arguments both ways. The business has some points in its favour:

• it says it does not advise on future SDLT planning,
• it says clients receive any refund directly from HMRC,
• it says it refers more complex or advisory cases to insured professionals, and
• it says it charges nothing if no refund is obtained.

However, there are also features that HMRC could reasonably view as falling within the tax adviser definition:

• collecting transaction facts relevant to SDLT treatment,
• considering which relief, exemption or reclaim basis may apply,
• estimating the amount recoverable,
• preparing and drafting the claim, and
• submitting the reclaim to HMRC on the client’s behalf.

Those activities can amount to material aid or assistance in connection with another person’s tax affairs, even if the business avoids calling it “advice”. In practice, HMRC often focuses on substance over wording.

There is a separate tax point worth noting for readers dealing with SDLT reclaims. Some reclaim businesses have historically focused on “uninhabitable” arguments. That area is now much harder. Following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, the condition threshold is relatively high. Ordinary disrepair, dated condition, or the need for renovation will often not be enough. Any business screening such claims is therefore making a significant legal and factual judgement.

Outcome

The practical conclusion is that a business assisting with retrospective SDLT refund claims may still be treated as a tax adviser for AML purposes if it does more than clerical processing.

If the business is identifying possible SDLT reliefs, assessing eligibility against the law, estimating refunds and preparing claims, HMRC may take the view that it is providing material aid or assistance in connection with tax affairs under Regulation 11(d) of the 2017 Regulations.

Simply describing the work as “administrative” will not necessarily keep it outside scope.

Practical Steps

If you are trying to assess whether your own business falls within AML supervision, work through the following points carefully:

1. Map the actual client journey.

   Write down exactly what happens from first enquiry to claim submission. Focus on what judgements your business makes, not just what your engagement letter says.

2. Separate clerical work from tax analysis.

   If staff are deciding which SDLT treatment may apply, or whether a reclaim is viable, that is more than clerical input.

3. Review your communications.

   Website wording, intake forms, emails and scripts often reveal whether the business is really identifying refund opportunities or merely processing client instructions.

4. Check how refund estimates are produced.

   Using HMRC calculators does not remove responsibility if someone in the business is choosing the inputs based on legal or factual judgement.

5. Review referral arrangements.

   If complex matters are referred out, identify where the line is drawn and whether simpler cases still involve tax analysis in-house.

6. Be especially careful with uninhabitable claims.

   After Mudan, the threshold is high. Claims based on poor condition need careful legal analysis and should not be treated as routine.

7. Consider obtaining specialist regulatory advice.

   Where the position is borderline, a formal view on AML scope may be sensible before continuing to trade on the assumption that registration is unnecessary.

Conclusion

A business that helps recover overpaid SDLT is not automatically outside the AML regime just because it avoids the word “advice” or does not handle client funds. The key question is whether it provides material aid, assistance or advice in connection with another person’s tax affairs. Where the work includes assessing eligibility, identifying reclaim routes and preparing submissions to HMRC, the risk of falling within Regulation 11(d) is real.

Legal References Used

• Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, especially Regulations 8, 11(d) and 18(1)
• Finance Act 2003
• Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

This page was last updated on 22 March 2026.

See all questions and answers categorized in this sitemap. Or use Google site search below.