Tribunal found Elkins acted dishonestly by operating avoidance schemes and falsifying legal documents
A solicitor at the centre of aggressive tax avoidance schemes that deprived the public purse of more than £1.2 million has been struck off the Roll after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found his misconduct “extremely serious” and at times dishonest.
Timothy Charles Elkins, admitted in 1983 and a partner at Oxfordshire firm Johnson and Gaunt, was accused of multiple failings during dozens of property transactions between 2011 and 2013. The tribunal heard that he facilitated four complex stamp duty land tax (SDLT) mitigation schemes promoted by third-party companies, despite clear risks to both clients and lenders.
According to evidence presented by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Elkins oversaw 80 conveyancing transactions in which schemes such as the Unlimited Company Scheme, the Option Scheme, the Crystal or Conditional Contract Scheme, and the Jovian Planning Scheme were deployed. Collectively these avoided SDLT payments amounting to £1,299,560.
The tribunal found that Elkins not only failed to disclose material information to his lender clients but also acted in the face of blatant conflicts of interest. In many cases, he represented both buyer and lender despite knowing that the structures being used had no proper commercial basis. He also permitted the use of one client’s money to benefit another and failed to keep accurate accounting records.
Particularly troubling for the panel was Elkins’s conduct following the March 2012 Budget, which closed a legal loophole relied upon by the Option Scheme. Rather than halt pending transactions, he backdated Crystal Scheme contracts to give the impression they were executed simultaneously with the property purchase. By doing so, he knowingly misled clients and HMRC, creating a false picture of compliance.
The tribunal concluded that these acts amounted to dishonesty. Submitting SDLT1 forms that claimed relief when he knew the schemes were ineffective was deemed a deliberate misrepresentation to HMRC. He also facilitated the suppression of information during HMRC enquiries, further undermining the integrity of the system.
Embed from Getty ImagesEvidence showed that Elkins’s firm benefited financially not only from standard conveyancing fees but also from referral payments channelled by promoters such as Inventive Tax Strategies Limited and the Professional Advice Bureau. The tribunal found no written agreements were in place, in breach of professional rules. Invoices revealed the firm received over £29,000 in additional fees, with the promoters themselves taking more than half a million pounds from clients.
Elkins denied acting dishonestly and argued that he had been following client instructions and relying on assurances from scheme providers. He presented character references, including one from a senior judge, and evidence of his long career without previous disciplinary issues. However, the SDT said these did not outweigh the seriousness of his actions.
The panel noted that Elkins’s behaviour was not a single lapse but a sustained pattern over two years. His willingness to backdate documents and submit misleading tax forms went far beyond poor judgment, striking at the heart of the duties of honesty and integrity owed by solicitors.
In its ruling, the SDT ordered that Elkins be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. He was also directed to pay the SRA’s costs, the figure of which was formally assessed at the conclusion of the hearing.
The judgment underlined that while Elkins may have been pressured by promoters and clients keen to avoid tax, he bore personal responsibility as the solicitor of record. By facilitating schemes that HMRC later investigated and challenged, he exposed clients to financial and legal risk and compromised the standing of the profession.
The tribunal stressed that public confidence in solicitors depends on their ability to resist dubious arrangements and provide frank, lawful advice. Elkins’s failings, it concluded, were of such gravity that nothing less than striking off was sufficient to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the legal system.