HMRC Names Barrister as Tax Avoidance Promoter
Is HMRC’s Treatment of Setu Kamal Fair?
On 4 September, HMRC added barrister Setu Kamal, a practitioner with more than 20 years’ experience at the Bar, to its official list of tax avoidance promoters. The announcement has already sent ripples through the legal and contracting sectors, raising important questions about fairness, professional reputations, and the blurred lines between what is legal and what HMRC deems unacceptable.
A Career at Stake
For a barrister with decades of experience, being publicly named by HMRC carries significant consequences. Even before any detailed legal challenges or appeals are considered, such a listing risks reputational damage that may prove irreversible. In sectors like law and finance, trust and credibility are everything. To be associated — even indirectly — with “tax avoidance schemes” can undermine years of professional standing overnight.
The Legal vs. The Acceptable
It is important to stress that what Kamal is alleged to have “promoted” was not illegal. Tax avoidance, by definition, involves using lawful means within the existing framework to reduce tax liabilities. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegal. HMRC’s growing tendency to conflate avoidance with wrongdoing creates an environment where professionals can find themselves publicly censured for advising within the letter of the law, even if HMRC dislikes the outcome.
A Question of Fairness
Critics argue that HMRC’s approach is less about law and more about messaging. By naming individuals publicly, HMRC signals to the market that certain schemes are off-limits — even when those schemes comply with existing legislation. The result? The burden of unclear or poorly drafted laws shifts onto professionals, who can be punished for operating within them.
The Wider Impact on Contractors
For contractors, the situation is doubly concerning. Many are caught in the crossfire of complex tax rules, forced to rely on expert advice to navigate shifting regulations. If barristers and advisers risk public censure for offering legal routes through the system, contractors will be left with fewer choices and greater uncertainty.
Conclusion
The case of Setu Kamal highlights the tension between legality and perception in UK tax enforcement. While HMRC insists it is protecting taxpayers, the decision to publicly list a respected barrister raises troubling questions about fairness and proportionality. Without clearer laws and more consistent guidance, professionals and contractors alike remain vulnerable to reputational fallout — even when acting within the law.
