For the first time, a practising barrister has been publicly named by HMRC as a promoter of tax avoidance. The listing of Setu Kamal, a direct access barrister also qualified as a solicitor, marks a turning point in HMRC’s approach with long-promised crackdowns on facilitators of tax evasion schemes facing being named and shamed.
A barrister on the tax avoidance list
HMRC accuses Kamal of designing four schemes, marketed through companies including MLG Pay Limited and Vision HR Solutions Ltd, which promised contractors they could keep more of their income by sidestepping income tax and National Insurance. The schemes allegedly relied on contract templates crafted to enable disguised remuneration arrangements.
Under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) rules, HMRC publishes details of schemes and promoters once they have had the chance to make representations. Kamal now joins a list of over 170 promoters, but his inclusion is unprecedented given his standing as a legal practitioner. HMRC was explicit: “Legal professionals have a position of trust and responsibility – they shouldn’t be involved in creating schemes that purport to let people avoid paying tax.”
Legal privilege under pressure
The Kamal case lands just months after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced sweeping reforms aimed at advisers and enablers of tax evasion. Most striking is the move to curtail legal professional privilege where legal advice is used to market or conceal tax avoidance schemes.
Traditionally, privilege protected communications between lawyer and client. But under the reforms, advice that forms part of a scheme’s “promotion” could be disclosable to HMRC. For barristers, this means opinions drafted to lend legitimacy to avoidance structures could be scrutinised, undermining the long-held sanctuary of confidential legal advice.
New criminal and civil liability for legal professionals
Alongside reputational damage, legal professionals face real legal exposure. The government has expanded DOTAS obligations, imposed tougher stop notices, meanwhile prosecutors are taking action against firms which fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. Barristers who draft contracts, opinions, or templates enabling avoidance could be prosecuted if HMRC deems those arrangements abusive.
This represents a dramatic extension of liability: where once barristers’ roles were limited to providing “advice”, they may now be treated as co-promoters of unlawful tax structures. Professional indemnity insurers are already warning that litigation risk could increase, with disgruntled clients suing their advisers after HMRC challenges schemes.
Why the focus is shifting
Some barristers have long been part of the machinery of aggressive tax planning. Opinions from reputable counsel have been used to shield schemes from scrutiny and reassure clients. But the government’s crackdown shows an unwillingness to accept legal advice as cover for arrangements that divert billions from the Exchequer.
Reeves has linked enforcement to the need for funding public services, with HMRC promising both to help users exit schemes and to pursue promoters with penalties and potential criminal charges. The fact that the first named barrister practises in direct access work, often dealing directly with contractors in umbrella or freelance arrangements, illustrates how HMRC is targeting those at the intersection of employment law and tax planning.
