Dan Neidle

Our report is here, with links to sources: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/08/04/c...

In the meantime, anyone needing tax advice should use a regulated firm, and only deal with regulated professionals. If you're speaking to a salesman like Mr Gimple, with no legal or tax qualifications, then you're doing it wrong.

Let's see if the SRA, the CMA or the ASA take any action.

Finally, the Advertising Standards Authority may have a view on how reasonable it is for a small unregulated firm with a dismal history to say it is "one of the UK's leading providers of Legal Services".

Chancery Law & Tax may also have breached the Competition and Markets Authority's guidance for unregulated providers of legal services, in particular:

But legal services are regulated. The question is whether the firm's name, and the claim it's one of the UK's leading providers of legal services, amounts to holding out that the firm is regulated. If it is, that's a criminal offence:

So how can it be legal for Mr Gimple's firm to call itself Chancery Law & Tax when it employs no qualified tax or legal personnel?

Currently tax advice is completely unregulated. That may be about to change www.gov.uk/government/c...

These errors suggest that Mr Gimple and Chancery Law & Tax lack a basic understanding of SDLT.

This isn't a one-off mistake. The guide says "qualifying businesses are not typically subject to SDLT".

A serious error. In *all* cases where an individual is incorporating, there will be an up-front SDLT charge - potentially a very high one given current rates.

Mr Gimple's guide mainly discusses the section 162 TCGA "incorporation relief" from capital gains tax. However it claims that section 162 also applies to stamp duty land tax. That's just wrong. It doesn't.

Landlords often want to move their business into a company - that can save them significant tax on their rental income. But incorporating is high risk - it can trigger large up-front capital gains tax and stamp duty.

Mr Gimple's new firm has just published a guide to incorporating a property business.

It contains a serious but very basic error.

Someone with so little understanding of UK tax should never have been selling a tax scheme, and certainly shouldn't be running a tax firm now. But he is.

Here's Mr Gimple selling the Less Tax for Landlords scheme. Almost everything he says here is nonsense. youtu.be/jOneBojYQnA

Chancery Law & Tax is owned by a man called Tony Gimple.

At Mr Gimple's previous firm, Less Tax for Landlords, he sold a landlord tax avoidance scheme for years. It was an incompetent disaster, was shut down by HMRC, and has ruined hundreds of landlords.

If you want to jump straight to our full report, with links to sources: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/08/04/c...

Chancery Law & Tax is "one of the UK's leading providers of Legal Services". It appears to have no employees or directors with any legal or tax qualifications.

And it's a one man argument for regulating tax advice.

Quick thread:

It thought it generated more growth and tax than it cost. I don’t know if that’s correct, but it’s not crazy.

Sorry, it’s such a common misunderstanding I completely missed that!

Which raids specifically?

It is notional, but the balance is meaningful - it tells us whether tax needs to be raised to cover pensions/social security. Right now we know that in the 2040s it will (all things being equal), and that Sikka’s suggestion would accelerate this.

UK wealth tax: high risk and anti-growth Claims of £24bn from a UK wealth tax ignore delays, capital flight (£200–£500bn) risks to growth and employment. Data, country evidence & better reforms.

Plenty of evidence: taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/22/u...

Indeed. And it wasn’t a “NIC cut for the rich”

And possibly zero if these are jobs displaced from elsewhere…

No you haven’t. State pensions don’t work like that. Tax paid now funds pensions now.

Plenty of accountants understand economics. Murphy, like Sikka, is one of the exceptions. They’re both cranks.

Suggests it’s pretty tiny!

Because he blocked me after I challenged one of his previous false claims.

Yes, blocked me after I corrected one of his previous false claims. Weird behaviour.

I don't know if Sikka sets out to mislead, because he likes clicks, or if he simply has no clue about accounting and tax. Either way, it's deeply embarrassing he's a member of the House of Lords.