Author: Glenn

The government recently announced significant changes to the planned reforms to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR). The threshold for 100% relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million when the changes take effect from 6 April 2026. The change will be introduced via an amendment to the Finance Bill 2025 with relief reduced to 50% on qualifying assets above the new level.

Spouses or civil partners will be able to pass on up to £5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets between them free of inheritance tax, in addition to the existing nil rate bands. The transferable allowance will also apply to surviving spouses or civil partners who were widowed before the new policy was announced.

These changes adjust the reforms first announced at Autumn Budget 2024, which had attracted strong criticism from the farming community and rural businesses over the potential impact on small farms and family-owned enterprises. By raising the threshold, the government aims to significantly reduce the number of estates affected by higher inheritance tax charges, ensuring that the reforms are focused primarily on the largest estates.

The government estimates that around 85% of estates claiming APR in 2026–27, including those also claiming BPR, will pay no additional inheritance tax as a result of these changes.

Shares designated as “not listed”, such as those traded on AIM, will attract BPR at a flat rate of 50% (reduced from 100%) from April 2026. This measure was unaffected by the latest announcement.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the initiation of legal or arbitral proceedings by an employer against a ‘whistleblower’ who has made a protected disclosure constitutes an actionable detriment under the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, effectively overriding the defence of Judicial Proceedings Immunity, or JPI. 

In November 2021, the claimant, initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings against his former employer for post-employment detriment as a consequence of whistleblowing. The claimant, who had worked at his employers’ London residence until his resignation in 2019, alleged that he made protected disclosures regarding instances of verbal and physical abuse by his employer directed at members of staff.

The respondent’s defence was that the claimant had made the allegations for financial gain rather than for altruistic reasons, had breached a confidentiality and independent consulting agreement under ICC Rules, and was effectively running an “extortion scheme” by making “false claims”.  

The Court allowed the appeal based on the protection of whistleblowers by the ERA 1996, concluding that this statutory protection overrides the common law doctrine of JPI. In the Court’s view, allowing an employer to use litigation as a shield against a whistleblowing claim would render the legislation meaningless, as Section 47B(1) of the ERA provides a right not to be subjected to “any detriment by any act” by an employer for making a protected disclosure, including any perceived breach of confidence, as such a mechanism would effectively enable employers to escape liability by suing whistleblowers. Moreover, under Section 43J of the ERA, any confidentiality agreement that precludes a protected disclosure is deemed to be void.  

Thus, the initiation of legal or arbitral proceedings by an employer against a worker, when executed on the ground of a protected disclosure, is actionable as a detriment under Section 47B of the ERA. This ruling effectively prevents employers from using litigation as a de facto penalty or “punitive tool” to harass or financially pressure a whistleblower. The Court has now established that this protection is not limited to threats, but also extends to the act of commencing proceedings. Employers should note that they cannot simply bypass Section 43J by enforcing a confidentiality clause through arbitration proceedings. 

For many individuals and business owners, paying tax is one of the largest regular financial commitments they face. Yet tax bills often arrive as a shock, not because the amounts are unexpected, but because the funds have not been set aside in advance. Developing a disciplined approach to saving for tax can remove stress, protect cash flow and support better financial decision making.

The starting point is understanding when tax is due and how much is likely to be payable. For employees taxed through PAYE, liabilities are largely settled automatically. For the self-employed, company directors, landlords and investors, tax is often paid later, sometimes many months after the income is earned. This delay can create a false sense of affordability, leading to funds being spent rather than reserved.

A practical approach is to treat tax as a non-negotiable cost, similar to rent or wages. As income is received, a proportion should be transferred immediately into a separate savings account earmarked for tax. This creates a clear boundary between available funds and money that belongs to HMRC. For those with variable income, setting aside a conservative percentage can help ensure there is enough saved even if profits increase unexpectedly.

Using a dedicated tax savings account can be particularly effective. Keeping tax funds separate reduces the temptation to dip into them for day to day spending. Some people choose instant access accounts for flexibility, while others prefer notice or fixed term accounts if they are confident about timing and amounts. The aim is not high returns, but certainty and accessibility when payment deadlines arrive.

Regular reviews are also important. Changes in income, tax rates, or personal circumstances can affect how much needs to be saved. Reviewing figures quarterly or alongside management accounts allows adjustments to be made before problems arise. This is especially relevant where payments on account apply, as these can significantly increase cash outflows in certain months.

Saving for tax is not just about avoiding penalties or interest. It supports better planning and peace of mind. When tax funds are already in place, decisions about investment, expansion, or personal spending can be made with greater confidence. It also reduces reliance on short term borrowing or time to pay arrangements.

In simple terms, saving for tax turns a reactive problem into a controlled process. By planning ahead and treating tax as a priority, individuals and businesses can smooth cash flow, reduce anxiety and stay firmly in control of their financial position.

If you are considering an asset purchase and are unsure which funding route is most appropriate, we can help you review the options and assess the impact on your business. A short discussion at the planning stage can often lead to a more efficient and sustainable outcome.

Making mistakes in business is unavoidable. No matter how experienced or careful someone is, decisions are made with imperfect information, time pressure and changing conditions. What separates resilient businesses from those that struggle is not the absence of mistakes, but the ability to learn from them and adapt.

The first step is recognising mistakes early. Small issues often provide warning signs before they develop into serious problems. A missed deadline, a dissatisfied client, or a project that runs over budget all contain useful information. Ignoring these signals, or explaining them away, usually makes matters worse. Acknowledging what has gone wrong allows corrective action while the impact is still manageable.

Once a mistake is identified, reflection becomes essential. This involves stepping back from the immediate emotional response and focusing on the underlying causes. Was the decision based on incomplete data, unrealistic assumptions, or insufficient resources? In many cases, mistakes reveal weaknesses in systems rather than individual failings. Understanding this distinction helps avoid blame and encourages constructive analysis.

Mistakes often highlight flaws in processes. Repeated pricing errors may point to poor cost tracking or unrealistic margins. Ongoing issues with staff turnover might indicate unclear roles or weak communication rather than performance problems. Reviewing systems after a setback allows businesses to improve controls, refine workflows and reduce the likelihood of repetition.

Another key lesson is adaptability. Markets change, customer expectations evolve and strategies that once worked may no longer be effective. A failed product launch or marketing campaign can reveal valuable insights about customer behaviour that would not have been obvious beforehand. Businesses that treat these outcomes as feedback, rather than failure, are better placed to adjust and move forward.

Sharing lessons learned is also important. When mistakes are discussed openly, others can benefit from the experience without repeating it themselves. This helps create a culture of continuous improvement, where people feel able to raise concerns and suggest improvements.

Over time, learning from mistakes builds resilience and confidence. Each setback that is understood and addressed strengthens future decision making. In business, mistakes are not a sign of incompetence, they are evidence of action. The real risk lies not in making mistakes, but in failing to learn from them.

Owning more than one home can create valuable Capital Gains Tax planning opportunities, but only if you understand how and when to nominate a property for Private Residence Relief.

Typically, you do not have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) when you sell a property that has been your main family home. In contrast, properties that have only been used as investments and never as a primary residence do not qualify for this exemption. This tax relief is known as Private Residence Relief (PRR).

It is increasingly common for taxpayers to own more than one home, and there are a number of important considerations for homeowners. An individual, married couple, or civil partnership can only benefit from PRR on one property at a time. However, it is possible to choose which property benefits from the CGT exemption when it is sold by making an election.

To nominate a property as your main home, you must write to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), specifying the full address of the home you want to nominate. All owners of the property must sign the letter. If your combination of homes changes, you must make a new nomination within two years of the change. You must also have lived in the house as your main or only residence at some point in the past.

Special rules apply for overseas properties and for non-UK residents. Since 6 April 2015, an overseas property can only be nominated if you lived in it for at least 90 days in the tax year. It is important to carefully consider the timing and frequency of making or changing an election to ensure maximum relief.

Even if you own more than one home, certain periods always qualify for relief. You are entitled to PRR for the last nine months before you sell your property, even if you were not living there at the time. Other qualifying periods may include the first two years of ownership if the property was being built or renovated, or if you could not sell your previous home, provided you lived in it as your only or main residence within two years of acquiring it.