Criticism of Finance Bill leads to amended basis period transitional rules
From April 2024, sole traders and partners will be taxed based on the profits earned during the tax year, as opposed to the profits for the basis period ending during the tax year. The draft rules were initially criticised, so an amendment has been made. What’s the full story?

To enable the move to tax-year basis periods, the 2023/24 tax year will make use of transitional rules; the profits for the accounting period ending in 2023/24 will be taxed along with the profits up to April 2024 (the “transition component”). As with any major change to taxation, some taxpayers would have been adversely affected during the transitional year. For example, a long accounting period could cause an individual’s income to exceed the threshold for the high-income child benefit charge or the abatement of the personal allowance.
To counteract this, the draft rules sought to exclude the transition component from net income within the tax calculation. However, this unintentionally caused a further issue: due to the order that tax reducers are applied in the calculation, certain reliefs could not be used to reduce the tax due on the transition component.
Following criticism, an amendment has now been made that will allow all income tax reliefs to be applied without increasing the net income. This then allows income tax reliefs including top slicing relief, EIS/SEIS/VCT relief and double taxation relief to reduce the tax on the transition component.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?