Do you need HMRC AML registration if you only help with SDLT refund claims administratively?

Introduction

A common question for small tax-related businesses is whether they need to register with HMRC for anti-money laundering supervision under the Money Laundering Regulations. The issue often arises where a business says it is not giving tax advice, but is helping customers submit claims or forms to HMRC for a fee.

This matters because HMRC can impose penalties for carrying on regulated activity while unregistered. The key question is not what the business calls itself, but what it actually does in practice. If the work amounts to accountancy service provider activity, registration may be required. If it is genuinely limited to generic information and pure administration, the position may be different.

The Question

A business was contacted by HMRC after applying for AML registration. HMRC queried whether the business had been trading while unregistered and asked for:

• the date when relevant activity actually began;
• the business’s gross profit for penalty purposes; and
• details of any previous AML supervision.

The business explained that it helps customers pursue Stamp Duty Land Tax refund claims for a percentage fee if the claim succeeds. It said it does not provide professional tax advice, does not interpret tax law, and only uses publicly available HMRC guidance. It described its role as administrative only, with HMRC paying any refund directly to the customer.

The business therefore wanted to know whether its activities really fell within the scope of HMRC AML supervision as an accountancy service provider, and whether a penalty should apply if registration was not in fact required.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s core point was that the legal answer depends on the substance of the services provided, not simply on how the business describes them.

In anonymised form, his position was:

• the business assists with SDLT refund claims;
• it says it provides administrative help only;
• it says it does not give customer-specific tax advice;
• it relies on publicly available HMRC material; and
• it registered voluntarily out of caution, rather than because it accepted that registration was mandatory.

The important part of the reasoning is that there is a real distinction between:

• giving only basic information that would be the same for everyone; and
• helping a person decide whether they are entitled to a tax repayment, preparing or submitting a claim on their behalf, or advising on the tax treatment of their circumstances.

Once a business moves beyond generic information and starts dealing with a customer’s own tax position, there is a serious risk that HMRC will treat it as carrying on regulated activity.

The Law

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

Under those Regulations, certain businesses must be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes. That includes an accountancy service provider. In broad terms, this can include a business that provides accountancy services, tax advice, or tax compliance services by way of business.

HMRC publishes guidance on who needs to register for money laundering supervision, including guidance for accountancy service providers. That guidance is useful, but the legal position ultimately depends on the Regulations themselves and on what the business actually does.

HMRC’s published material distinguishes between:

• basic tax information that is the same for everyone, which may fall outside registration requirements; and
• customer-specific tax advice or help with returns, claims, or other submissions, which may fall within them.

If a business has carried on relevant supervised activity without registration, HMRC may consider a financial penalty. HMRC’s internal manual ECSH82815 explains that, for this purpose, gross profit is generally taken as VAT-exclusive turnover less VAT-exclusive cost of goods sold and other direct costs for the relevant accounting period.

Analysis

The position should be analysed step by step.

First, incorporation is not the same as commencement of relevant activity. A company can exist before it starts carrying on business that falls within the Regulations. So if the business began relevant work after incorporation, HMRC is entitled to ask for the true start date.

Second, the label “administrative support” is not decisive. HMRC will look at what happens in reality. Questions that matter include:

• Does the business assess whether the customer qualifies for an SDLT refund?
• Does it review the facts of the purchase or transaction?
• Does it decide which relief, repayment route, or legal basis applies?
• Does it complete or submit a claim based on the customer’s own circumstances?
• Does it explain why tax was overpaid or why a refund is due?

Third, if the business merely points customers to the same public HMRC guidance without applying that guidance to their facts, that supports the argument that registration may not be required. But if it helps customers complete and submit duty claims, that is a factor pointing the other way. HMRC’s own guidance expressly treats help with completing and submitting tax returns or duty claims as potentially within scope.

Fourth, charging a success fee does not by itself decide the issue. The real question remains whether the service is customer-specific tax or compliance work. A business may still be within the AML regime even if it is only paid when a claim succeeds and even if HMRC pays the refund directly to the customer.

Fifth, voluntary registration does not automatically prove that registration was legally required. Equally, saying registration was voluntary does not prevent HMRC from concluding that the business was in fact carrying on relevant activity before registration. The facts come first.

Sixth, if HMRC concludes that the business was an accountancy service provider, the next issue is penalty exposure. HMRC would then want the actual commencement date and the gross profit figure in order to calculate any financial penalty under its framework.

Seventh, if the business wants to resist a penalty, the strongest points are likely to be:

• the work was genuinely limited to generic, publicly available information;
• there was no customer-specific tax advice;
• there was no interpretation of tax law for individual customers;
• any misunderstanding over dates was an innocent error, such as confusing incorporation with commencement of relevant activity; and
• the business acted openly and cooperatively with HMRC.

But the weakness in that position is obvious: if the business helps people make SDLT repayment claims based on their own circumstances, HMRC may well say that this goes beyond generic information and into tax-related services requiring supervision.

Outcome

The practical conclusion is that this is not a case where a business can safely rely on the phrase “administrative only” without examining its actual work in detail.

If the service truly consists only of giving the same basic public information to everyone, with no customer-specific assessment or advice, there is an argument that AML registration as an accountancy service provider may not be required.

However, if the business helps customers prepare, assess, or submit SDLT refund claims by reference to their own facts, HMRC may reasonably take the view that the business is carrying on regulated activity. In that case, registration may have been required, and a penalty may be in point if the business traded before registering.

Practical Steps

Anyone in this position should work through the following points carefully:

1. Identify exactly what service is provided in practice, not just how it is described in marketing or correspondence.
2. List each stage of the customer journey, including eligibility checks, document review, claim preparation, and submission.
3. Separate genuinely generic information from customer-specific tax analysis.
4. Confirm the actual date when any potentially regulated activity first began.
5. Prepare the gross profit figure using HMRC’s penalty framework approach if HMRC has requested it.
6. Check whether there has ever been supervision by another AML supervisory body.
7. Keep a clear written explanation of why the business believed registration was or was not required.
8. If corresponding with HMRC, explain the facts precisely and avoid overstating the “administrative only” point if the business in fact assists with claims based on individual circumstances.

If the business model has changed over time, that should also be explained. A business may have started with generic information only and later moved into customer-specific claim work. If so, the timing matters.

Conclusion

Whether HMRC AML registration is required for an SDLT refund business depends on the real nature of the work. Purely generic information may fall outside the regime, but customer-specific help with tax claims can bring the business within accountancy service provider supervision. The start date of that activity and the business’s gross profit then become important because they affect any potential penalty calculation.

Legal References Used

• Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017
• HMRC guidance: Money laundering supervision for accountancy service providers
• HMRC guidance: Money Laundering Regulations: who needs to register
• HMRC Economic Crime Supervision Handbook, ECSH82815 – Sanctions for non-compliance: financial penalties: financial penalties framework: use of gross profit to calculate penalties for contraventions of the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs)

This page was last updated on 22 March 2026.

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