web development slot pragmatic can be a sought-after skill, which can open the door to many opportunities for earning money. However, being a web developer can be stressful and demanding particularly when you are required to meet deadlines, complex projects, and demanding clients. If you’re trying to diversify your sources of income and decrease your dependence on active income, you might think about pursuing passive income.

Top Passive Income Ideas for Web Developers

Passive income can be a great way for web developers to generate additional revenue streams without constant active effort.

Start a SAAS Product Developer Business

A SaaS solution could be an ideal method for Web developers to earn regular income. It is possible to build a large customer base and earn a steady revenue from membership fees by creating a solution that addresses the same issue that is common to other companies. After your product has been developed and launched, it will continue to earn money without needing an ongoing effort and allow you to focus on other business tasks.

Start an Affiliate Marketing

You can earn money by making use of affiliate marketing to promote the services or products of other individuals. Each time a purchase is made using your affiliate link, you’ll earn a commission. Your expertise can be utilized as a web designer to create content that draws people to your site and promotes the products that you’re associated with. When your content is finished you can then be able to generate passive income.

Also read: Top 15 Unique Website Ideas

Start an Online Jewelry Store

It is possible to sell your items to a huge client base and earn income from passive sources by setting up an online jewelry store. An appealing and user-friendly online store that showcases your items can be built with your skills as a web designer. After your store is set up, it can continue running and earning revenue without requiring an endless amount of work.

Start a Content Writing Company

As a web developer, starting a content writing business could be an excellent option to earn a passive income. It is possible to delegate work and focus on business growth while also earning a share of the profits by hiring additional editors and writers. If your team is on the job the business will continue to earn money with no direct involvement, which gives you the opportunity to move to other tasks.

Start a Subscription Box Business

Customers who subscribe to receive a particular set of products every month from a subscription-box business. Because customers love getting a variety of items from different brands Subscription boxes are in fashion in the present.

Sell Digital Products

Digital assets, such as stock images and 3D models are developed and sold by web developers. Digital assets are easy to use and could generate earnings for many years. The most highly rated items are those that can be made digital. They are easy to create and share and are a great way to increase your business.

Start a Tech Blog

Blogging has become an income-generating venture for those with the appropriate expertise and who are able to effectively communicate with their readers. Through sharing useful information bloggers are able to earn money through a variety of ways, including affiliate marketing sponsorships or Google Ads.

Start A WordPress Template Business

Web developers are able to design templates for their websites and sell them on marketplaces for digital goods like ThemeForest. After a template has been created it can be used to continue earning revenue without any additional effort from the designer.

Also read: Top 30 Money Making Apps for Extra Income

Start A Website Hosting Platform

Web developers are able to offer website hosting services to their customers or offer hosting packages for sale on websites. Hosting could be a lucrative passive income stream because customers regularly pay to host services.

Start an Etsy shop

Etsy is a popular platform for artists to sell their products and web designers are able to profit from this opportunity by creating a visually appealing and user-friendly shop. After you’ve established your shop, you’ll be able to create multiple passive income streams by implementing actions like refining the product listing, using social media to promote the shop, and collaborating with influencers to enhance its visibility.

Final Word

Web developers can generate passive income through digital products, affiliate marketing, ad revenue, mobile apps, online courses, and more. Diversifying income streams can lead to financial stability and growth.

The taxation of image rights has long been a central feature of remuneration structures in professional sport, particularly football. Athletes and other public figures have relied on arrangements whereby payments for the commercial exploitation of a player’s image are received separately from employment income through dedicated image rights companies.

Reforms announced in the 2025 Budget signal a significant shift in HMRC’s approach. From April 2027, image rights payments connected to employment will be treated as taxable employment income and subject to income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs) through the PAYE system.

The change will affect not only the individual receiving the income but also the employer, who may face increased costs due to employer NICs.

The implications for football clubs, athletes and advisers could be significant. Existing contractual structures may require renegotiation, the role of image rights companies may diminish substantially, and uncertainty remains around the treatment of genuine sponsorship arrangements. As a result, the reforms could significantly reshape remuneration structures across professional sport.

The reform represents a shift away from HMRC’s historical acceptance of certain image rights structures and towards a statutory framework that treats employment-related image rights payments as remuneration.

Buried in the Budget

Within the detailed provisions of the 2025 Budget is a measure that could fundamentally alter established practices in the sports industry. While the government’s wider tax reform package aims to raise approximately £2.3 billion, the changes targeting image rights payments may have disproportionate consequences for football clubs and players.

HMRC estimates the reform will raise around £40 million annually. Although relatively modest in fiscal terms, the measure could have substantial practical implications for player contracts, club finances and long-standing tax planning strategies within professional sport.

New Rules from April 2027

From 6 April 2027, image rights payments connected with employment will be treated as employment income. As a result, such payments will be subject to income tax and both employer and employee NICs through PAYE.

This would represent a significant departure from current practice. Football clubs have traditionally entered into separate agreements with players’ image rights companies for the licensing of personal brand and intellectual property rights.

Provided these arrangements reflected genuine commercial exploitation of a player’s image, payments were generally made outside the PAYE system.

Under the proposed legislation, however, where a connection exists between employment and the image rights payment, the tax advantages associated with these structures will no longer apply.

Although HMRC has yet to publish detailed guidance, early indications suggest that existing arrangements may also be affected from April 2027, potentially requiring widespread restructuring of current contracts.

A Landmark Case Reduced to History?

Image rights arrangements have long relied on the reasoning established in Sports Club PLC (2000).

The case accepted that payments made for the commercial exploitation of a player’s image could, in appropriate circumstances, be separated from employment income. While not strictly binding, the decision has been influential due to the limited case law in this area.

Once new legislation takes effect, however, the relevance of this precedent may diminish significantly. Where statutory rules clearly define the tax treatment of image rights payments, those provisions will override previous reliance on case law.

Counting the Cost

The financial consequences of the reform could be significant.

Football clubs will become liable for employer NICs of around 15% on image rights payments that were previously outside the NIC regime. This alone could increase payroll costs considerably.

In addition, many player contracts are structured on a net-of-tax basis. If players face higher tax liabilities as a result of the new rules, clubs may need to increase payments to maintain agreed net income levels.

Players themselves will also face higher taxation. Income previously received through an image rights company and taxed initially within a corporate structure may instead be taxed as employment income at as much as the additional rate band (45%).

As a result, many existing contractual arrangements may need to be renegotiated or restructured.

The Grey Areas

One key issue that remains unresolved is the treatment of genuine third-party sponsorship arrangements.

In principle, commercial agreements that are entirely independent of a player’s employment contract should remain outside the employment income rules. However, complexities arise where sponsors are also commercial partners of the player’s club.

This overlap creates a potential grey area. Where sponsorship payments are linked, directly or indirectly, to a player’s employment with a club, HMRC may seek to treat those payments as employment income.

Further guidance will therefore be necessary to clarify how genuinely independent endorsement arrangements will be treated.

Beyond Image Rights: Wider Tax Changes

The image rights reforms form part of a broader series of tax developments affecting high-earning individuals.

From April 2029, some taxpayers who receive both PAYE income and self-assessment income may be required to settle a greater proportion of their tax liabilities through PAYE during the year.

For professional athletes with significant investment income, this could result in HMRC seeking to collect additional tax through PAYE coding adjustments. The practical operation of this system remains uncertain.

A further change is the mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind from 6 April 2027. For footballers and other high earners, this may create practical difficulties where PAYE deductions approach the 50% regulatory limit on deductions from earnings, particularly where agent fees are also involved.

Although HMRC has issued guidance in this area, employers are not required to follow a single prescribed approach, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice.

Reading Between the Lines

The language used in the Budget documentation is notable. The measure is described as addressing “the use of image rights to avoid employment income tax and NICs”.

This suggests that HMRC views many existing structures as primarily tax motivated.

However, image rights payments often reflect genuine commercial value. Professional athletes frequently generate substantial income from endorsements, sponsorships and promotional activities linked to their personal brand.

Nevertheless, the wording of the announcement may signal a shift in HMRC’s compliance strategy. Since April 2021, enforcement activity has focused largely on clubs rather than individual players, but this focus may broaden in the future.

Technical Considerations and Planning Points

Several technical issues will require careful analysis once draft legislation is published.

The definition of “connected with employment” will be particularly important. If interpreted broadly, the test could capture arrangements where clubs facilitate sponsorship opportunities or where players engage with brands associated with the club.

The treatment of existing contracts will also be significant. If no transitional rules are introduced, long-term agreements negotiated several years earlier could suddenly become substantially more expensive for clubs.

The reforms may also reduce the importance of valuation disputes that historically centred on whether payments to image rights companies reflected the genuine market value of a player’s image. Instead, disputes may focus on whether a payment is truly independent of employment.

The changes may also affect the future viability of image rights companies. If most payments from clubs are treated as employment income, these companies may become commercially redundant. This could lead to corporate restructuring, liquidation, or the transfer of intellectual property to alternative commercial entities managing endorsement income.

Another area that may require consideration is the potential interaction with the settlement’s legislation (ITTOIA, 2005). Historically, image rights companies have often been owned by players, sometimes alongside family members as shareholders. If income from commercial endorsements continues to be routed through such companies, questions could arise as to whether the arrangements constitute a settlement where income is effectively diverted from the individual who generated the underlying value of the image rights. While the settlements provisions have not typically been central to HMRC’s challenges in this area, the narrowing of the employment income rules may lead to greater scrutiny of how endorsement income is distributed through corporate structures.

Advisers may also need to consider whether broader anti-avoidance principles could apply where endorsement income is structured to fall outside the new rules. HMRC is likely to scrutinise whether arrangements are genuinely independent commercial transactions or instead arise by reason of employment.

From an employment tax perspective, the rules may operate similarly to existing anti-avoidance provisions targeting employment-related payments routed through intermediary structures. Payments connected with employment but made through corporate structures could therefore be treated as employment income for tax purposes.

There are also similarities with rules that apply to employment-related benefits provided through corporate arrangements. Under these principles, benefits received because of an individual’s employment may still be taxed as employment income, even where they arise indirectly through companies or other structures.

Finally, practical difficulties may arise in relation to PAYE operation and the 50% regulatory limit on deductions from earnings. Where players already face significant deductions and agent fees, the reclassification of image rights payments as employment income may result in liabilities that cannot be fully collected during the tax year, increasing the likelihood of year-end underpayments.

What Happens Next?

Although image rights companies may continue to play a role in genuine commercial activities outside the employment relationship, the direction of travel is clearly towards greater alignment of image rights payments with employment taxation.

Before April 2027, clubs, players and advisers will need to review existing contractual arrangements carefully to ensure compliance with the new rules. Sponsorship agreements may need to be clearly separated from employment structures, and remuneration models across the industry may require substantial restructuring.

For advisers, the priority will be reviewing existing contractual arrangements well in advance of April 2027 and identifying payments that may fall within the new employment income definition. Early restructuring may be essential to manage the increased employment tax and NIC exposure.

Next Steps

With significant changes on the horizon, now is the time for clubs, players and advisers to review existing image rights arrangements and assess how the reforms may affect current contracts and commercial structures. ETC Tax can assist clients in understanding the implications of the new rules and planning ahead of April 2027. Click here to get in touch.

Introduction

Selling a residential property that has increased in value can trigger a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability. While many landlords and property owners expect a tax liability may arise, the calculation and reporting requirements are often more complicated than anticipated.

This is particularly common where a property has been owned for several years, improvement works have been carried out over time, or ownership records are incomplete. In practice, many individuals only become aware of the reporting obligations after completion, sometimes when deadlines have already passed.

When Does CGT Apply?

CGT may arise when an individual disposes of a residential property that is not fully covered by Private Residence Relief. This commonly includes:

• Buy-to-let properties.
• Former main residences that have been rented out.
• Second homes.
• Inherited properties that have increased in value before sale.

For residential properties, the taxable gain is calculated by comparing the disposal proceeds against the acquisition cost, while taking into account certain allowable deductions, but the position is rarely as simple as “sale price less purchase price”.

What Costs Can Be Claimed?

When calculating the gain, certain costs connected with buying and selling the property can be deductible for CGT purposes. These can include:

• Solicitor and conveyancing fees on purchase and sale.
• Estate agent fees.
• Stamp Duty Land Tax paid on acquisition.
• Capital enhancement expenditure.

These deductions can reduce the overall taxable gain, provided the costs meet HMRC requirements and appropriate records are retained.  For more information, please see HMRC’s CGT guidance.

Improvement Costs vs Repairs

One of the most misunderstood areas is the distinction between repairs and capital enhancement expenditure. HMRC distinguishes this as follows:

• Repairs and maintenance, which are usually treated as revenue expenses, and may have already been claimed against rental income during the ownership, and
• Capital improvements, which are allowable against the gain where they enhance the property’s value or extend its useful life.

Examples of enhancement expenditure can include:

• Extensions,
• Loft conversions,
• Structural alterations,
• Installation of substantially improved kitchens or bathrooms, beyond a modern like-for-like replacement, or
• Significant upgrades that improve the property beyond its original condition.

Accurate records and supporting documentation are important, particularly where work was carried out many years before disposal.  These include invoices and completion documentation.

CGT rules for UK residential property have become increasingly important in recent years due to changes in reporting requirements and HMRC compliance activity.

The 60-Day Reporting Requirement

One of the most overlooked issues is the requirement to report and pay CGT on UK residential property disposals within 60 days of completion.  

This is a separate online submission from the annual self-assessment tax return, but the disposal must also be included on the year-end self-assessment return to finalise the position.

Where tax is due, individuals are required to:

1. Submit a UK Property Disposal Return to HMRC, and
2. Make a payment on account of the estimated CGT liability.

These steps must be completed within 60 days of the completion, and there is guidance at HMRC on how to report and ways to pay.

If a capital loss arises or no tax is due on the sale, then there is no requirement to submit the additional report, but the sale must still be disclosed on the self-assessment tax return.

Late filing or payment can result in penalties and interest, even where the gain is later reported correctly on the individual’s self-assessment tax return.

The rules can catch taxpayers by surprise, particularly where they have not sold property before or are unaware of the reporting obligations.

Common Issues We See

In practice, errors often arise because:

• Allowable costs are missed.
• Improvement works are incorrectly treated.
• Historic records are incomplete.
• The reporting deadline is not identified until after completion.
• Property owners assume the solicitor will deal with the tax reporting automatically.

A professional review of the figures and supporting records before exchange or completion can help avoid unnecessary issues, reduce the risk of inaccuracies or missed claims, and ensure sufficient records are retained.   It will also give an idea of the CGT arising on the sale.

Related Case Study

Read our related case study on the calculation and reporting of CGT following the sale of a rental property.

Why Specialist Advice Matters

Residential property CGT calculations frequently involve more than a straightforward arithmetic exercise, especially when properties have been owned for many years or substantial work has been carried out during ownership.

The correct treatment of expenditure, reliefs, ownership history, and reporting obligations can materially affect the final position.

Professional advice can help ensure:

• The gain is calculated accurately.
• Allowable deductions are identified properly.
• HMRC reporting obligations are met on time.
• Supporting records are retained appropriately.
• Tax returns are completed consistently.

Need Advice on a Property Disposal?

If you are planning to sell a residential property and are unsure about the Capital Gains Tax implications, specialist advice should be taken based on your personal circumstances. Early review of the position can help avoid missed deadlines, unexpected liabilities, and unnecessary penalties.

If you have any queries about Capital Gains Tax on residential property sales or reporting obligations for rental property disposals, please do get in touch with ETC Tax, and we would be happy to help.

FAQ Section

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to pay Capital Gains Tax when selling a rental property?

Potentially yes. CGT will apply where a residential property has increased in value and is not fully exempt from tax reliefs.

What costs can be deducted from a property gain?

Allowable deductions can include legal fees, estate agent fees, SDLT, and qualifying enhancement expenditure.

What is the 60-day CGT reporting rule?

UK residents disposing of residential property that gives rise to CGT need to report and pay the estimated tax within 60 days of completion.

Do repairs reduce Capital Gains Tax?

Routine repairs are not deductible for CGT purposes if they have already been claimed against rental income. Qualifying capital improvements will be deductible against the gain.

Do I still report the sale on my Self-Assessment return?

In many cases, yes. Even where a 60-day property return has been submitted, the disposal will still need to be included on the annual Self-Assessment return.

What happens if the 60-day deadline is missed?

HMRC will charge late filing penalties and interest where reporting obligations are not met on time.

Further reading

Introduction

Ongoing geopolitical conflicts, public health emergencies and international travel disruption can create unexpected UK tax residence issues for internationally mobile individuals.

Non-UK residents may find themselves spending more time in the UK than anticipated due to circumstances outside their control, raising concerns about whether they could inadvertently become UK tax resident.

To explore this, we look at how residence is determined within the UK and the exceptional circumstances relief that is available for these times of crisis.

Residency in the UK is determined under the Statutory Residence Test (SRT) and click here for HMRC internal manual . In practice, when applying this test, you consider both the time spent in the UK and the extent of an individual’s continuing connections to it (sufficient ties test) in a tax year.  The results of this test then determine if an individual is UK or non-UK resident for that tax year.

Exceptional circumstances can sometimes affect how days spent in the UK are counted, particularly during periods of crisis such as war, pandemics, natural disasters or sudden travel restrictions.

These rules became particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they can also apply in other emergencies where individuals are unexpectedly prevented from leaving the UK or are required to return to the UK due to the country they reside in being unsafe.

Understanding how HMRC applies these provisions is important for internationally mobile individuals, business owners, expatriates and non-UK residents who need to monitor their UK day count carefully to ensure they do not become UK resident.

Under the SRT, some days spent in the UK can be ignored if they are due to “exceptional circumstances”. This includes certain situations involving war, civil unrest, or serious illness. HMRC says the rules depend heavily on the facts of each case.

How the Statutory Residence Test Works

UK tax residence is determined under the SRT, and the test considers:

• The amount of time spent in the UK.
• Work carried out in the UK, and
• An individual’s connections or “ties” to the UK.

The SRT includes automatic overseas tests, automatic UK tests and sufficient ties tests, with residence determined based on the individual’s overall circumstances for the relevant tax year.

For many internationally mobile individuals, day counting is critical. Exceeding certain thresholds can result in UK tax residence arising unexpectedly.

Exceptional circumstances provisions may therefore provide limited relief where an individual is forced to remain in the UK due to unforeseen events.

What Are Exceptional Circumstances?

Under the SRT, certain days spent in the UK may be disregarded where an individual is unable to leave the UK because of circumstances beyond their control. 

The maximum number of days that may be disregarded under SRT is 60 days per tax year.  Any days over this limit will count towards the UK day count.

HMRC considers exceptional circumstances to include situations where:

• An individual is prevented from leaving the UK due to war, civil unrest or political instability.
• International borders close unexpectedly.
• Government advice restricts travel.
• Serious illness or public health emergencies prevent departure.
• Natural disasters or other major disruptions affect travel arrangements.

The legislation applies narrowly and generally only where the circumstances are:

• Beyond the individual’s control.
• Unexpected or unforeseeable, and
• The reason the individual cannot leave the UK.

Click here for manual rfig22210

Click here for manual rfig22220

HMRC also emphasises that the application of the rules depends heavily on the facts of each case and will not accept claims relating to ordinary travel disruption, elective or routine medical treatment, foreseeable events, personal preferences to remain in the UK or situations where the individual could have reasonably left the UK.  Click here for manual rfig22270

HMRC generally expects individuals to leave the UK as soon as circumstances permit.

When Days Spent in the UK May Be Ignored

National Emergencies and War

War, military conflict or political unrest can create sudden travel disruption that prevents individuals from leaving the UK safely or legally and returning to their country of residence.

For example, recent airspace closures and travel restrictions affecting parts of the Middle East temporarily prevented some individuals from returning to their country of residence.  As such, they had to stay in the UK until the restrictions were lifted and it was safe to travel back home again.

In such circumstances, HMRC may accept that additional days spent in the UK arose due to exceptional circumstances beyond the individual’s control.

HMRC guidance specifically refers to situations as above where the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) advice recommends against travel.

Following the outbreak of the conflict involving Ukraine, HMRC confirmed that individuals returning to the UK from affected territories such as Ukraine, Russia and Belarus could potentially qualify for exceptional circumstances treatment, subject to the normal statutory conditions and the 60-day limit.

Click here for efig22250

Click here for rfig22260

Pandemics and Public Health Restrictions

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exceptional circumstances rules can apply during global health emergencies.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the following led to many individuals having to remain in the UK longer than expected:

• Travel bans and international border closures.
• Cancelled flights.
• Quarantine restrictions.
• Official public health advice and restrictions; and
• Self-isolation requirements.

HMRC issued specific guidance during this period confirming that COVID-related restrictions could potentially qualify as exceptional circumstances in some situations and accepted that some individuals were unable to leave the UK because of the above circumstances.

However, HMRC also made clear that not every pandemic-related delay would qualify automatically.  Each case depends on its particular facts and evidence.

Also, HMRC stressed that simply choosing to remain in the UK during the pandemic would not automatically qualify as an exceptional circumstance.

Natural Disasters and Civil Unrest

Events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes or widespread civil disorder may also create circumstances beyond an individual’s control.

Where travel is disrupted unexpectedly and departure from the UK becomes impractical or unsafe, HMRC may consider whether the exceptional circumstances provisions apply.

Serious illness or injury

HMRC states there can be “limited situations” where days spent in the UK may be disregarded because of a sudden illness or a life-threatening injury affecting:

• The individual.
• Their spouse or partner, or
• Their dependent child.

The circumstances must generally be unexpected or unforeseeable and genuinely outside of the individual’s control that prevents them from leaving the UK.

Routine medical treatment, elective treatment, ordinary travel disruption and foreseeable events are examples of circumstances that HMRC will not accept as qualifying as exceptional circumstances in this case.

Acceptable examples provided include:

• travelling to the UK because a child suffered a major injury, or
• remaining in the UK because someone is hospitalised after an accident.

HMRC states that the person must intend to leave the UK as soon as the circumstances allow.

The 60-Day Rule Explained

The exceptional circumstances provisions are limited.

In most cases, a maximum of 60 days can be disregarded for residence purposes, even where the disruption lasts longer.

This means individuals who spend significant additional time in the UK during a prolonged crisis may still become UK tax resident despite the relief provisions.

Careful analysis of UK ties and overall residence status remains essential.

Importantly, exceptional circumstances relief does not apply universally across all parts of the SRT. Whether days can be disregarded depends on the particular residence test being considered.

Evidence and Record Keeping

Individuals seeking to rely on exceptional circumstances should maintain detailed records to support their position and any claim they make.

Relevant evidence may include flight cancellations and correspondence with airlines or embassies, government travel announcements, medical documentation, border closure notices and quarantine requirements.

HMRC may request evidence demonstrating that the individual intended to leave the UK and was genuinely prevented from doing so.  Simply choosing to remain in the UK during a crisis may not be sufficient.

As a result, residence cases involving exceptional circumstances often require careful factual analysis, particularly for individuals with complex international arrangements or multiple UK connections.

Good record keeping is therefore extremely important.

Conclusion

Exceptional circumstances provisions within the UK SRT can provide valuable relief where individuals are unexpectedly prevented from leaving the UK during periods of crisis. However, the rules are narrowly applied, subject to strict evidential requirements and limited to a maximum of 60 disregarded days per tax year.

Careful monitoring of UK day counts, detailed record keeping and professional advice are often essential to managing UK residence risks effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as exceptional circumstances for UK residence purposes?

Exceptional circumstances generally involve events beyond an individual’s control that prevent them from leaving the UK, such as war, pandemics, natural disasters or government travel restrictions.

How many days can be ignored under the exceptional circumstances’ rules?

Typically, up to 60 days may be disregarded under the Statutory Residence Test provisions.

Did COVID-19 qualify as an exceptional circumstance?

In some situations, yes. HMRC issued guidance confirming that certain COVID-related travel restrictions and quarantine measures could qualify.

Does HMRC automatically accept exceptional circumstances claims?

No. HMRC considers each case based on its facts and supporting evidence.

Can I become UK tax resident despite the exceptional circumstances’ relief?

Yes. Even where some days are disregarded, an individual may still become UK tax resident depending on their overall circumstances and UK ties.

What evidence should I keep?

You should retain travel records, cancellation notices, government guidance, medical evidence and any documentation showing why departure from the UK was not possible.

Next Steps

If you have any queries about anything covered in this article, please do contact us at ETC Tax. Our team would be happy to help you understand how the UK residence rules may apply to your circumstances.

Further Reading on a recent case relating to exceptional circumstances click here

Introduction

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in Parker [2026] TC 09868 provides a useful and practical reminder of how the UK’s Statutory Residence Test (SRT) can apply where international travel is disrupted.

The case considered both the “transit” and “exceptional circumstances” provisions within the SRT and will be of particular interest to internationally mobile individuals whose travel plans are affected by events outside their control.

Background

The taxpayer, MP, worked in Iraq as a Chartered Engineer while his family home was in London. During the 2019–20 tax year, MP was present in the UK at the end of the day on 100 days.

Under the third automatic overseas test, an individual can remain non-UK resident if they spend fewer than 91 days in the UK in the relevant tax year, provided other conditions are met.

MP argued that 11 of his UK days should be disregarded under the statutory exceptions, reducing his UK day count to 89 and therefore making him non-UK resident for the tax year. HMRC disputed four of those days. If HMRC’s position had been correct, MP would instead have been UK resident under the sufficient ties test.

The Tribunal ultimately found in favour of the taxpayer.

The Transit Exception

The first issue concerned three days in February 2020 when MP passed through Heathrow between international journeys.

The relevant dates were:

• 8 February 2020 – Iraq to Heathrow, overnight stay near Heathrow, onward flight to Naples the next day for a family holiday;
• 17 February 2020 – Naples to Heathrow, overnight stay near Heathrow, onward flight to Tokyo the next day for a family holiday; and
• 28 February 2020 – Tokyo to Heathrow, overnight stay near Heathrow, intended onward flight to Dublin the next day.

Under the SRT transit exemption, a day can be disregarded if:

• the individual arrives in the UK as a passenger;
• leaves the UK the following day; and
• does not undertake activities substantially unrelated to their passage through the UK.

HMRC argued that MP’s journeys ended when he landed at Heathrow because each leg had been booked separately rather than under a single through-ticket. On that basis, they contended he was no longer “in transit”.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that the legislation did not support such a distinction and that whether flights were booked on a single ticket or separately was largely arbitrary.

HMRC also argued that meeting MP’s wife and stepdaughter and staying overnight near Heathrow were activities unrelated to transit.

Again, the Tribunal disagreed. It concluded that accommodation, meals, airport transfers and meeting family members travelling onward together were all functionally connected to the international journeys.

The Tribunal therefore accepted that the transit exemption applied to 8 and 17 February and would also apply to 28 February if the following day qualified under the exceptional circumstances provisions.

Exceptional Circumstances and Storm Jorge

The second issue is related to 29 February 2020.

MP had boarded a flight from Heathrow to Dublin, but the flight was cancelled due to airport disruption caused by Storm Jorge. He disembarked, his luggage remained checked in with the airline, and he accepted overnight accommodation and food near Heathrow and rebooking arrangements provided by the airline for a flight the following day.

HMRC argued that adverse weather did not constitute “exceptional circumstances” and that MP had not done enough to leave the UK “as soon as circumstances permitted”, because he had not attempted to arrange alternative travel independently.

The Tribunal adopted a more practical approach.

It accepted that while poor weather alone may not always be exceptional, airport closures and significant travel disruption caused by severe weather could amount to exceptional circumstances.

Importantly, the Tribunal also rejected the suggestion that taxpayers must pursue every possible travel alternative in order to satisfy the statutory test. It stated:

“Ordinary societal expectations do not require a passenger, in the midst of significant disruption, to disregard airline arrangements, abandon checked in luggage, or attempt speculative alternative travel in order to demonstrate an intention to leave the UK as soon as those circumstances permit.”

The Tribunal therefore concluded that 29 February qualified as an exceptional circumstances day. As a result, the transit exemption also applied to 28 February.

Why the Decision Matters

This case is a useful illustration of how the SRT should be applied realistically and commercially.

The decision confirms that:

• Transit through the UK can still apply where journeys are booked separately rather than on a single ticket.
• Routine overnight stays connected with onward travel do not necessarily prevent transit treatment, and
• Individuals affected by genuine travel disruption are not expected to take unreasonable or impractical steps to leave the UK immediately.

For internationally mobile individuals, particularly those with family or accommodation ties in the UK, careful tracking of UK days remains essential. However, Parker demonstrates that the courts may take a sensible approach where travel disruption genuinely falls outside the taxpayer’s control.

It remains to be seen whether HMRC will appeal the decision.

Next Steps

If you have any queries about anything covered in this article, please do contact us at ETC Tax. Our team would be happy to help you understand how the UK residence rules may apply to your circumstances.

Further Reading – Exceptional Circumstances and UK Tax Residence Rules During Times of Crisis

Find out what our members have been asking us this month…

I have a client who lives in South Manchester and an employee who lives in the Manchester area. They don’t have an office. Every week they meet for a meeting and have lunch which the company pays for. I think this would be classed as travel as they are working in a place that is not their usual place of work. I just want to check this is right- as the alternative would be staff entertaining and would be constrained by the £150/head limit.

A

In short, this is unlikely to fall within the travel and subsistence rules. For travel (and associated subsistence) to be tax-free under ITEPA 2003, the employee must be travelling to a temporary workplace. Where an employee does not have an office and works from home, their home is generally treated as their permanent workplace.

In this case, the key factor is the regular weekly meetings. Where an employee attends the same location on a regular and ongoing basis, HMRC would typically regard that location as a permanent workplace due to regular attendance. As a result, the travel to that location would not qualify as business travel, and any associated subsistence (including meals) would not be eligible for tax relief.

Even if the meeting locations vary, the predictable and frequent (weekly) pattern of attendance would make it difficult to argue that each location is a temporary workplace.

Turning to the cost of the lunches, these would not fall within the £150 per head exemption for staff entertaining (ITEPA 2003 s264), as that exemption applies only to annual events, not to recurring weekly meetings.

Accordingly, HMRC would generally treat the cost of the meals as a taxable benefit in kind, as there is no applicable exemption once the travel rules are not met.

From a practical perspective, the company could either:

• report the cost via P11D, or
• include it within a PAYE Settlement Agreement (PSA) so that the company settles the tax on the employee’s behalf.

Overall, while the meetings themselves are clearly business-related, the regularity of the arrangement means the associated travel and subsistence are unlikely to qualify for tax-free treatment.

Q

My client is a one person consultant company who has fallen out with her main customer. That customer has agreed – without admitting any liability – to pay £17,500 to my client’s consultancy company “by way of compensation for the termination of the engagement (Termination Payment).” Because there is no admission of liability, the payment is being referred to as ex-gratia, though the Settlement agreement doesn’t use that phrase.

My query is whether this receipt is vatable?

I assume that, as the payment is in connection with a trading agreement, that it will be subject to corporation tax. However, (as would be typical for a one person consultancy company), the contract amounts to over 90% of the company’s income, so I wondered if the Exception here could apply BIM40120 – Specific receipts: compensation and damages: intangible assets – HMRC internal manual – GOV.UK and if that may make it exempt from tax or if there is anything else which could mean such a compensation payment would not be taxable?

A

You are quite correct that the default position is that when an agreement is cancelled and compensation is paid it would be revenue as per BIM40120. Where the contract represents such a large amount of the business that the business basically ceases it can be considered as capital as per the examples on BIM35530. If it is capital there is a good chance that it will be tax free as it will involve the giving up of intangible rights (likely the right to sue) for an amount less than £500,000 as per CG13020.

Termination payments are generally subject to VAT from 1 April 2022, following HMRC’s revised policy that treats early termination fees as further consideration for the underlying contracted supply. This represents a significant change from the previous position where such payments were typically considered outside the scope of VAT as compensation or damages. The new treatment means that if the original supply was subject to VAT, then any termination payment will also be subject to VAT at the same rate, and this is covered within HMRC’s revenue and customs brief 2/2022 early termination fees and compensation payments, and I have attached a link below for your information.

Revenue and Customs Brief 2 (2022): VAT early termination fees and compensation payments“

Q

My client owns a commercial building in London.

Last year he was given the opportunity to buy a residential property next door, which he saw as a good investment and he bought it in a separate company and paid residential SDLT on the purchase.  The property was not tenanted but he intended to find new tenants.

Unfortunately, it turns out that there is significant noise from the commercial building into the residential property and he is struggling to rent it out in its current state.   The commercial building is due to be renovated and at that time they can deal with the noise transference issues.  However that might take 2-3 years and in the meantime, he is concerned that it will sit empty.  He is also concerned that he paid the residential rates of SDLT in good faith and he now does not want that to be challenged, but it being empty or used for other purposes in the interim.  Please can you therefore advise as follows:

1. If he leaves it empty for 3 years is this a problem for the SDLT he paid as a residential property
2. Can he do anything with it for this interim 2/3 year period without compromising the SDLT position – options are:
   1. Airbnb although the local council restricts such lettings to a maximum of 90 days per year
   2. rent it to third party as short term office space
   3. Use it as a temporary office by one of his other businesses under licence

Both under b or c there would be no need to do any office conversions – it would be just people putting a desk in the existing space.

Is there anything else you can think of that would be permitted?

If there is nothing he can do, what are the consequences of paying the residential rates of SDLT, if any?

A

“The SDLT status of a property is based on its condition and suitability for use at the time of purchase. The property would be regarded as still “residential” if the last use by the previous owner was residential (a dwelling) and so it would be correct to have applied the residential rates at that time, despite the problems with “noise pollution” etc affecting the ability to attract tenants. 

Where a company acquires a residential property for more-than £500,000, a flat “higher-rate” of SDLT at 17% potentially applies based on the full price paid, rather than the usual, lower rates and bands that apply to non-company etc purchases. There is relief from this higher rate if a property is acquired with the intention of being let out commercially (SDLTM09555) which would apply in your client’s case, despite the property not actually being let yet – given the problems letting with the presence of noise pollution.   

The relief can be withdrawn if, within 3 years of purchase, the property ceases to be held for the purposes of a relief. Where a property is not actually let, it will still qualify for relief if the intention remains to let it (without “undue delay”), and the delay is due to works etc to the property. Certainly, attempts at any form of letting where possible before any works commence, or between active works, would help to strengthen a claim for relief but would not be necessary where the works themselves prevent such letting (SDLTM09660).”

If you have a question similar to the above or want to know more about our Tax Partner Pro membership please drop us an email mailto:[email protected]

Introduction

The idea is undeniably appealing.

You work online. Your clients are scattered across the globe. Your laptop fits neatly into a backpack. So why stay in one place, especially somewhere with grey skies and a healthy appetite for income tax?

The modern “tax nomad” concept builds on that logic. Live internationally, move between countries, and in doing so reduce, or even eliminate, personal tax exposure.

Technology has made this lifestyle far more realistic than it once was. Remote work is widely accepted, global mobility is easier, and visa programmes now exist for digital workers.

However, tax systems were never designed with permanently travelling entrepreneurs in mind.

Which raises the obvious question: does tax nomadism actually work, or is it simply a planning idea that sounds better online than it does in practice?

The basic strategy

Most international tax planning for mobile individuals follows a two-step structure:

1. Terminate tax residence in your current country (“OLD”)
2. Establish residence in a more favourable jurisdiction (“NEW”)

Many online guides focus only on the first step… leaving.

In reality, leaving without landing somewhere is usually where the problems start.

Attempting to live permanently “between countries” may sound liberating, but from a tax perspective it can create uncertainty. Authorities are generally sceptical of individuals who claim to live nowhere, and financial institutions tend to share that scepticism.

For that reason, many advisers prefer a slightly different model: remain internationally mobile, but anchor that mobility with a clear tax residence somewhere.

Think of it less as being a nomad and more as having a base camp.

Leaving your previous tax system

The first stage of any international move is ensuring that you are no longer tax resident in the country you are leaving.

Exactly how this works varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Some countries rely primarily on physical presence tests. Others take a broader approach and consider factors such as where an individual’s home, family, or economic interests are located.

In the UK, residence is determined under the Statutory Residence Test (please see further reading section below for link to HMRC’s Guidance on this). In practice, this means looking at a mixture of time spent in the UK and the extent of a person’s continuing connections to it (sufficient ties test).

Leaving, therefore, tends to involve more than simply buying a one-way plane ticket. Individuals often need to restructure elements of their lifestyle, reducing UK visits, reconsidering accommodation arrangements, and ensuring their main centre of activity has genuinely moved abroad.

The change in status is usually reflected through the individual’s next tax return rather than through a formal “departure certificate”. In other countries, the process can be more administrative, with explicit deregistration procedures.

In practice, disputes often arise years later on enquiry, not at the point of departure, therefore creating delayed risk rather than immediate certainty.

Either way, the key point is that tax residence does not disappear automatically just because someone spends a few months abroad.

Non-residence does not mean no tax

Even after residence has been broken, a country will usually retain the right to tax income that arises within its borders.

This is known as source taxation, and it is a standard feature of international tax systems.

Rental income from property located in a country will typically remain taxable there. Employment income relating to work performed locally will also fall within the local tax net. In some cases, capital gains connected with domestic real estate may also be taxed.

The UK provides a useful illustration. A non-resident individual will generally remain taxable on UK property income and certain gains linked to UK land. Other income streams may be treated more favourably, for example, many dividends paid by UK companies to non-residents fall outside the UK tax charge.

The practical effect is that becoming non-resident usually converts an individual from being taxed on worldwide income to being taxed only on income sourced in that country.

For many internationally mobile individuals, that distinction can significantly reduce the overall tax burden, but it rarely eliminates it entirely.

The practical problem with living “nowhere”

One of the more popular internet interpretations of tax nomadism is the idea of never becoming resident anywhere.

Travel constantly. Stay below the residency thresholds in every country. Pay tax nowhere.

While that theory is occasionally presented as a loophole, it tends to collide with reality fairly quickly.

Financial institutions, for example, are required to collect tax residency information under international reporting systems such as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). Banks, investment platforms, and even some payment providers will normally ask where a client is tax resident.

Answering “nowhere” tends not to simplify those conversations and can also be problematic for KYC and compliance circumstances.

Immigration rules can create further complications. Long-term travel still requires visas, residency permits, or work permissions in many jurisdictions. Some countries now offer digital-nomad visas for longer stays, but these often have their own tax implications.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the risk of competing tax claims. Different countries apply different residency tests. Someone who believes they are resident nowhere may discover that two jurisdictions both consider them resident under their respective rules.

At that point the individual moves from enjoying tax freedom to navigating a dispute between tax authorities, which is rarely a pleasant experience.

Choosing a tax base

Because of these issues, many internationally mobile individuals choose a more stable structure.

Rather than trying to remain resident nowhere, they deliberately establish tax residence in a jurisdiction with a favourable tax system.

This approach provides clarity. Banks know where the individual is resident. Immigration status is easier to manage. And tax authorities have a clear answer if questions arise.

Importantly, establishing a tax base does not mean abandoning a mobile lifestyle. Many people maintain residence in one country while spending substantial time travelling elsewhere, provided they avoid triggering residency rules in those additional jurisdictions.

Several locations have become particularly popular in this context. The UAE and Monaco are frequently mentioned, but other jurisdictions such as Andorra, Malta, Italy and Ireland offer regimes designed to attract internationally mobile individuals.

Each operates differently. Some rely on territorial taxation, others on remittance systems or flat-tax regimes. The right choice tends to depend on the individual’s sources of income, family circumstances, and long-term plans, and also the compliance and cost side of moving to these locations.

For example

Consider Daniel.

Daniel built a successful online education business that sells professional training courses to clients around the world. The company operates through a platform hosted outside the UK, and the majority of his customers are based in North America and Asia.

After several years running the business from London, Daniel decides he would prefer a more international lifestyle.

He reduces his presence in the UK significantly and restructures his living arrangements so that his centre of life has clearly moved abroad. Over time, he establishes tax residence in Cyprus, where he spends a substantial portion of each year.

Cyprus becomes his administrative base. It is where he maintains accommodation, local banking relationships, and residency documentation.

Daniel’s travel calendar remains fairly flexible. He spends periods visiting clients in the United States and attending industry conferences across Europe, but he limits the time spent in any one country so that he does not inadvertently become tax resident there.

Under this structure, Daniel’s global income is primarily assessed under the Cypriot tax regime rather than the UKs. Certain types of foreign income can be treated favourably under Cyprus’s rules, while any UK-source income would remain subject to UK taxation.

Daniel still travels extensively, the lifestyle change he wanted, but his tax affairs are anchored to a clear jurisdiction.

Final Thoughts

The tax nomad lifestyle is not a myth.

It is entirely possible for internationally mobile individuals to organise their affairs in a way that reduces their overall tax exposure. ETC Tax can help with this contact us – [email protected]

What tends not to work particularly well is the internet idea of drifting indefinitely between countries while insisting that no tax system applies.

A more reliable approach is surprisingly simple:

• Exit your previous tax residence properly.
• Establish a new one in a suitable jurisdiction.
• Then enjoy the freedom to travel without accidentally creating tax problems along the way.

In other words, international mobility works best when it still has an address, even if you are rarely there.

Below is further reading from HMRC.

Further Reading

Landlords, listen up!

If you’re a landlord, you probably read Budget headlines the way most people read horror novels, through slightly parted fingers.

The latest plot twist? Plans to introduce higher income-tax rates specifically for residential property profits, adding an extra two percentage points to whatever band you already fall into from April 2027.

It doesn’t sound dramatic. Two percent rarely does, but in a sector that’s already endured mortgage interest restrictions, stamp duty surcharges, regulatory shake-ups and steadily rising costs, even a small-sounding change can feel suspiciously like the straw that nudges the camel’s back.

So, what’s going on and should landlords be worried?

Why is property income being singled out?

The official line is fairly simple. Employees pay National Insurance on their salaries; landlords don’t pay NI on rental profits. Introducing slightly higher tax rates on property income is presented as a way to narrow that gap.

From a policy perspective, that may sound sensible.

From a landlord’s perspective, it probably sounds more like: “Ah. More expenses.”

Over the past decade, private landlords have watched the rulebook steadily thicken.  Along with the changes mentioned above, there are tighter safety standards and digital tax reporting (Making Tax Digital (MTD) from 6 April 2026). Against that backdrop, a modest percentage rise doesn’t arrive in isolation. It lands on a pile of other pressures that are already there.

Why a small rise can feel bigger than it looks

Tax changes rarely exist on their own. They collide with mortgage renewals, maintenance bills, void periods, service charges and the occasional unexpected roof leaks that appear at precisely the wrong time.

When margins are healthy, an extra slice for HMRC may be irritating but manageable. When margins are thin, it can prompt more existential questions. Is the property still pulling its weight? Would the capital be better used elsewhere? Is it finally time to simplify the portfolio?

Those are the conversations we’re already seeing more often.

Will all landlords react the same way?

Not always, as everyone is different.

Smaller landlords, especially those who fell into renting almost by accident rather than through grand investment plans, may be less inclined to tolerate creeping complexity and shrinking post-tax returns.

Others, particularly those with larger portfolios or properties held through companies, may be insulated from this specific change and focus instead on longer-term strategy.

And then there are the landlords who sigh, sharpen their pencil, redo the spreadsheet… and carry on regardless.

Does this mean rents will rise or properties will flood the market?

Cue dramatic headlines.

Higher taxes often spark predictions of mass sell-offs and soaring rents. The reality is usually more subtle. Some landlords will exit, some will absorb the cost, some will adjust rents where the market allows, and some will restructure how they own their properties.

Selling a rental doesn’t automatically remove a home from the lettings market either; another investor may step in.

Also, selling the residential rental properties gives rise to additional online reporting to HMRC if CGT is due on the sale.  The online reporting and payment of CGT have to be submitted within 60 days of completion, on top of the declaration within the self-assessment tax returns.

If this window is missed, HMRC will charge late filing penalties, plus interest.  Therefore, the best time to speak to a tax adviser about Capital Gains Tax is before you sell, but if the clock is already ticking on a recent sale, don’t panic, as we can help you get it sorted quickly and correctly.

What is clear is that each additional policy change nudges behaviour at the margins. And enough nudges, over time, can reshape a sector.

So… Is this the final straw?

For a few landlords, possibly.

For many, it’s less about this single 2% tweak and more about what it symbolises: a continuing shift in how residential property investment is taxed and regulated.

The smart response usually isn’t panic; it’s planning.

Understanding how future tax liabilities could change, reviewing ownership structures, and checking whether portfolios are still doing what they were designed to do can make the difference between feeling buffeted by policy and staying in control of it.

Because while no one enjoys new tax rules, the landlords who cope best tend to be the ones who saw them coming and had a strategy ready before the ink was dry on the announcement.

Next steps

With the continued tax changes and the introduction of Making Tax Digital, tax compliance is becoming more complex.  If you have any questions or would like tailored advice regarding your rental properties, please get in touch.  Our experienced team of tax advisers will be happy to assist, so please get in touch.

Below is further reading in relation to Making Tax Digital and Incorporation for Landlords.

Further Reading

The 2026/27 tax year is now underway, and while many headline tax rates remain unchanged, ongoing freezes and reduced allowances continue to pull more taxpayers into higher tax bands.

Here is our overview.

Personal tax rates

Personal allowances and income tax thresholds remain frozen until April 2028:

• Personal allowance: £12,570
• Basic rate limit:20% from £12,571 to £50,270
• Higher rate: 40% from £50,271 to £125,140
• Additional rate: 45% above £125,140

The additional rate threshold remains at £125,140, and individuals earning above this level do not receive a personal allowance.

For incomes over £100,000, the personal allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 of additional income, creating an effective marginal tax rate of 60% within this band.

Dividend tax

The dividend allowance remains at:

Dividend tax rates have increased by 2 percentage points to:

• 10.75% (basic rate)
• 35.75% (higher rate)
• 39.35% (additional rate)

With such a low allowance, individuals, particularly retirees and business owners, may need to report dividend income to HMRC.

Capital gains tax (CGT)

The annual exempt amount for capital gains tax remains at:

Rates remain unchanged:

• 18% (basic rate taxpayers)
• 24% (higher/additional rate taxpayers)

The rate for gains qualifying for business asset disposal relief has changed to 18% from 6 April 2026.

Spousal transfers on separation

The rules introduced in April 2023 continue to apply:

• Up to three years after the end of the tax year of separation to make no gain/no loss transfers
• Unlimited time where transfers are part of a formal divorce agreement
• Continued access to private residence relief in certain circumstances

Pensions

Pension rules remain significantly more flexible:

• The annual pension allowance remains at £60,000, subject to tapering
• The Money Purchase Annual Allowance (MPAA) remains at £10,000

Making Tax Digital (MTD)

The rollout of Making Tax Digital for Income Tax Self Assessment (MTD for ITSA) is a key development affecting many taxpayers:

• From April 2026, self-employed individuals and landlords with income over £50,000 must comply with MTD rules
• From April 2027, this will extend to those with income over £30,000

Under MTD, affected taxpayers will be required to:

• Keep digital records of income and expenses
• Submit quarterly updates to HMRC using compatible software
• File an end-of-year final declaration to confirm total taxable income

This represents a significant shift from the traditional annual tax return process and will require many taxpayers to adopt accounting software if they have not already done so.

Corporation tax rates

From the 1 April 2026 there is no change to the corporation tax rates which remain as follows:

• Small profits rate: 19% for companies with taxable profits under £50,000.
• Main rate: 25% for companies with taxable profits over £250,000.
• Marginal relief applies between £50,000 and £250,000 of taxable profits.

The thresholds are divided by the number of associated companies.

Capital allowances

Capital allowances main rate of writing down allowance (WDA) for plant and machinery has been reduced from 18% to 14% from 1 April 2026 for companies and 6 April 2026 for income tax purposes.

A hybrid rate will apply for chargeable periods that straddle 1 April 2026.

The WDA for the special rate pool remains at 6% and no changes for full expensing (for companies) or annual investment allowance.

A new 40% First Year Allowance (FYA) was introduced from 1 January 2026 for qualifying main pool expenditure for businesses unable to claim full expensing (i.e. unincorporated business or assets used for leasing).

The 100% FYA for zero-emission cars and EV charge points has been extended to March 2027.

Late Filing Penalties for corporation tax returns

For corporation tax returns with filing dates on or after 1 April 2026, the fixed penalties have been doubled as follows:

• Up to 3 months late: £200.
• More than 3 months late: Another £200.
• If your tax return is late 3 times in a row, the £200 penalties are increased to £1,000 each.

Tax returns – key deadlines and dates for 2026/27

The 2025/26 tax year has now ended (on 5 April 2026), and tax returns for that year can now be prepared and submitted.

Key dates:

• 31 July 2026
  Second payment on account due for the 2025/26 tax year
• 5 October 2026
  Deadline to notify HMRC if you need to register for self-assessment
• 31 October 2026
  Deadline for submitting paper tax returns
• 31 January 2027
  Deadline for submitting online tax returns and paying any tax due
• 5 April 2027
  End of the 2026/27 tax year – ensure ISA allowances are used

Next steps

With continued freezes, reduced allowances, and the introduction of Making Tax Digital, tax compliance is becoming more complex. If you have any questions or would like tailored advice, please get in touch, our experienced team of tax advisers will be happy to assist.