RegulationAccounting StandardsICAEW makes case for legal professional privilege for accountants

ICAEW makes case for legal professional privilege for accountants

ICAEW intervenes in Supreme Court battle between Prudential and HMRC over legal professional privilege for tax advisors

ICAEW makes case for legal professional privilege for accountants

REGULATED QUALIFIED ACCOUNTANTS and tax advisors should be able to offer clients the benefit of legal professional privilege (LPP) on tax law, according to submissions made to the Supreme Court on behalf of insurance provider Prudential against HM Revenue & Customs.

The hearing, brought before the Supreme Court, 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.

Lawyers are currently the only professionals covered by the privilege, which allows a client to refuse to disclose certain confidential, legal communications to third parties, including courts.

A panel of seven judges in the Supreme Court heard members of ICAEW, ICAS, ACCA and the CIoT advising on tax matters should also be covered by legal advice privilege – a subset of legal professional privilege that specifically protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, but excludes confidential communications with third parties.

The privilege should be updated “as society changes”, said Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC acting for Prudential and instructed by PwC. 

“This [extending the privilege] would be recognition of that change.”

Additional testimony was provided by Fountain Court’s Patricia Robertson QC, intervening on behalf of the ICAEW. A particular issue arising from the absence of privilege, she said, was that citizens cannot be sure that their “candour” and advice received from their accountant will not go further.

Robertson put forward a test in order to determine whether an accountant might be covered by the privilege. If covered by LPP, qualified advisors with the ICAEW, ICAS, ACCA and the CIoT that are subject to the institutes’ code of practice would be covered when advising on a core area, such as tax.

James Eadie QC, also from Blackstone, responded for HMRC, noting that as long as the privilege has existed, courts have defined it as “one between a lawyer and a client” and that the privilege was not solely about confidentiality, and must only be provided in a “relevant legal context”.

He added there is a “strong public interest” in all relevant information in cases to be available to the courts.

Related Articles

FRC investigates PwC over Redcentric audit

Accounting Standards FRC investigates PwC over Redcentric audit

9m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
PwC CEE strikes partnership with LSBF

Accounting Firms PwC CEE strikes partnership with LSBF

10m Accountancy Age editorial
Treasury Select Committee report released on Making Tax Digital

Accounting Standards Treasury Select Committee report released on Making Tax Digital

10m Stephanie Wix, Writer
Record fine for Deloitte and audit partner over Aero misconduct

Accounting Standards Record fine for Deloitte and audit partner over Aero misconduct

1y Stephanie Wix, Writer
'Clear' tax avoidance guidance for advisers issued by institutes

Accounting Standards 'Clear' tax avoidance guidance for advisers issued by institutes

1y Stephanie Wix, Writer
Making Tax Digital: the "unexpected item in the bagging area"

Accounting Standards Making Tax Digital: the "unexpected item in the bagging area"

10m Stephanie Wix, Writer
New Year Honours of 2017

Accounting Standards New Year Honours of 2017

10m Stephanie Wix, Writer
ACCA announces partnership with RD Tax Solutions

Accounting Standards ACCA announces partnership with RD Tax Solutions

12m Stephanie Wix, Writer