THE BATTLE to extend legal professional privilege to tax advisors has been lost.
In the Supreme Court this morning, a panel of seven judges voted against allowing tax advisors' clients to take advantage of privacy protection by a margin of five to two. Currently, the privilege is only afforded to those of lawyers.
On his blog, ICAEW CEO Michael Izza called the decision "undeniably disappointing", but was comforted that two of the seven judges voted in favour of extending LPP.
"The Supreme Court believes that issues of extending legal advice privilege are a question for Parliament. In other words, the way to resolve this issue is by statute," said Izza.
Extending the privilege, the court held, would cause uncertainty over its scope and inconsistency in its application.
The case is the result of a tax dispute between Prudential and HMRC. In 2010, the Court of Appeal rejected claims by Prudential that, when advising on tax law, accountants should be protected by legal professional privilege.
The Supreme Court heard three days of submissions in November last year, in which Lord Pannick QC, acting for Prudential, observed Prudential were"not asking the court to change the law; we are asking it [the court] to identify and apply the current law".
However, in his submissions on behalf of the Law Society, Brick Court Chambers' Sir Sydney Kentridge QC noted that "the balance was struck already - once and for all - 400 years ago for a reason. The legal profession is a special authority in this field, regulated by the courts themselves".
However, one of the two dissenters today, Lord Sumption, held that in his opinion "it does not depend on the adviser's (sic) status, provided that the advice is given in a professional context".
Andrew Howell, dispute resolutions partner at law firm Taylor Wessing said the verdict is an unsurprising one.
He said: "The Supreme Court majority decided that to extend privilege beyond the legal profession would create uncertainty; and is a matter that should only be decided by Parliament.
"So the anomaly on legal privilege remains. The client can take the same advice from a lawyer or an accountant; but only communications with the lawyer will be privileged from future disclosure.
"There is obvious force in Lord Sumption's dissenting judgment, however. If the key to privilege is the nature of the advice which the client seeks, not the status of the adviser, why should privilege be the exclusive preserve of the lawyer?"
Supreme court decision not to allow tax advisors' clients to take advantage of privacy protection appears prejudicial. If you take tax advice from a lawyer, LPP will apply but not if you go to a tax adviser/accountant while the subject matter in both cases remains the same!
Posted by: Jay, 23 Jan 2013 | 17:50
A decision made by the law for the lawyers. Are we surprised at this shortsighted and self interested protectionism?
Posted by: Bertrand Fougere, 24 Jan 2013 | 12:34
Why has the sic been thrown in? What is wrong with the sentence "it does not depend on the adviser's status"?
Posted by: Michael, 26 Jan 2013 | 16:38
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.