Over the past 12 to 18 months, the UK indirect tax market has remained consistently active. Most accountancy firms report a steady flow of work driven by cross-border complexity, continued HMRC scrutiny, and the increasing interaction between VAT, customs, and wider commercial decisions.
However, that activity has not translated into uniform growth across indirect tax teams.
Some practices are expanding, adding headcount at senior levels, and becoming more central to client relationships. Others, despite being equally busy, have remained broadly static in size and positioning. The distinction between the two is not immediately obvious from the outside, but it becomes clearer when looking at how indirect tax is embedded within the firm.
One of the more consistent differences is the point at which indirect tax becomes involved in client work. In teams that are growing, there is a tendency for earlier engagement. Indirect tax is brought into discussions while transactions or structures are still being developed, rather than once they have been finalised. This changes the nature of the work. The role moves beyond confirming treatment or managing risk, and towards shaping outcomes as part of a wider advisory process.
This is often linked to how closely indirect tax is integrated with other service lines. Where there is alignment with corporate tax, transactions, or sector teams such as real estate, indirect tax tends to form part of a broader conversation. Work arises through collaboration rather than referral, and the team’s involvement becomes more consistent and less dependent on individual opportunities.
By contrast, in teams where growth has been more limited, indirect tax is more likely to operate within a reactive model. Involvement typically begins once a transaction has been agreed or an issue has been identified. The technical work remains important and, in many cases, highly complex. However, the scope for influencing the underlying commercial decision is reduced.
Internal positioning also appears to play a role. In some firms, indirect tax continues to sit behind other service lines in terms of visibility. Even where capability is strong, this can limit access to work at the stage where key decisions are being made. Over time, this affects both the type of work undertaken and the perception of the team within the wider business.
Client relationships can reinforce this dynamic. Where interaction is driven primarily by compliance or recurring engagements, it can be more difficult to reposition the team as part of a broader advisory offering. The relationship itself may be well established, but the context in which advice is sought does not always evolve.
These structural differences are becoming more relevant as the nature of indirect tax work changes. Developments such as e-invoicing, increased reporting requirements, and the continued interaction between VAT and customs are bringing indirect tax closer to operational and commercial decision-making. At the same time, HMRC’s approach has become more data-driven, with a greater focus on interpretation and risk.
In principle, these changes should create additional opportunity for advisory-led work. In practice, that opportunity tends to be realised by teams that are already positioned to engage earlier, operate alongside other advisory functions, and maintain visibility with clients and internally.
This is reflected in current hiring patterns. Where firms are investing in indirect tax, particularly at Senior Manager and Partner level, there is a clear emphasis on individuals who can operate beyond a purely technical remit. The expectation often includes involvement in client relationships, contribution to business development, and the ability to work across service lines. In other cases, hiring remains more delivery-focused, aimed at supporting existing workloads rather than expanding the scope of the practice.
The result is a more subtle divide within the market. Two indirect tax teams may appear similar in terms of size, client base, and technical capability. The difference becomes apparent over time in the type of work they are exposed to, the level of influence they have, and their ability to grow.
For those operating at a senior level, the question is less about whether the market is active and more about whether their current platform allows them to participate in that growth. Sustaining a busy practice is one outcome. Building a practice with increasing influence and scope is another.
