When a couple is separating or undergoing divorce proceedings, tax issues are often not the first thing on their minds. However, alongside the emotional challenges, it is important to understand the tax implications of divorce can have a significant impact.

Changes to the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) rules for divorcing couples took effect on 6 April 2023. These changes extended the period during which spouses and civil partners can make transfers between each other without triggering CGT. The no gain/no loss rule now lasts up to three years after they stop living together. Additionally, if the couple has a formal divorce agreement, there is no time limit for these transfers. Before this change, the no gain/no loss treatment only applied to disposals in the tax year of the separation.

There are also specific rules for people who continue to have a financial interest in their former family home after separating. These rules allow them to claim private residence relief (PRR) when the home is eventually sold, provided certain conditions are met.

During divorce proceedings, it is crucial to reach a fair financial agreement, if possible, as this can help avoid further legal complications. If an agreement cannot be reached, the court may step in to issue a "financial order." Both parties and their advisers should also carefully consider the future of the family home, any family businesses, and the potential Inheritance Tax consequences of the separation or divorce.

Married couples and civil partners could save up to £252 a year by transferring part of one partner’s unused personal allowance to the other, but you may need to cancel the claim if your income or relationship status changes.

The Marriage Allowance applies to married couples and civil partners where one partner does not pay tax or does not pay tax above the basic rate threshold for Income Tax (i.e., one partner must earn less than the £12,570 personal allowance for 2025-26).

The allowance allows the lower-earning partner to transfer up to £1,260 of their unused personal tax-free allowance to their spouse or civil partner. The transfer can only be made if the recipient (the higher-earning partner) is taxed at the basic 20% rate, which typically means they have an income between £12,571 and £50,270. For those living in Scotland, this would usually apply to an income between £12,571 and £43,662.

By using the allowance, the lower-earning partner can transfer up to £1,260 of their unused personal allowance, which could result in an annual tax saving of up to £252 for the recipient (20% of £1,260).

However, it is important to be aware you must cancel the Marriage Allowance if your circumstances change and any of the following apply:

• your relationship ends – because you have divorced, ended (‘dissolved’) your civil partnership or legally separated;
• your income changes and you are no longer eligible; or
• you no longer want to claim.

If your income exceeds £60,000 and you or your partner receive Child Benefit, you can now choose to pay the High Income Child Benefit Charge through your PAYE code instead of filing a Self-Assessment return; a simpler way to stay compliant while keeping your Child Benefit claim active.

The High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) is a charge that applies to parents whose income exceeds £60,000 in a tax year and whose family receive Child Benefit. The charge is calculated at a rate of 1% of the full Child Benefit amount for every £200 of income between £60,000 and £80,000. Once income exceeds £80,000, the charge equals the full amount of Child Benefit received effectively removing any financial gain from claiming it.

Taxpayers now have the option to report their Child Benefit payments and pay the HICBC directly through their PAYE tax code, rather than filing a Self-Assessment tax return. This change was announced in the Autumn Statement 2024 and has recently been made available to eligible taxpayers.

The tax charge can be collected through PAYE if:

• the individual is not required to file a self-assessment tax return for any other reason (for example, if they are self-employed), and
• the payment arrangement is made before 31 January following the end of the relevant tax year.

If these conditions are not met, the HICBC must be paid through self-assessment instead.

Taxpayers can choose whether to continue receiving Child Benefit and pay the charge or opt out of receiving it to avoid the charge altogether. It is usually beneficial to claim Child Benefit as doing so can safeguard certain benefits and ensure your child receives a National Insurance number at age 16.

Waiting to be paid but still having to hand over VAT? The VAT Cash Accounting Scheme potentially lets you pay VAT only when your customer pays you, helping to ease cash flow pressures for small and medium-sized businesses.

This approach can offer significant benefits if your business offers extended credit terms to customers or regularly deals with bad debts. Rather than having to find the money to pay VAT on sales you have not yet been paid for, the scheme allows businesses to align VAT payments with actual cash received. For many small and medium-sized businesses, this can offer real breathing space and reduce the strain on working capital.

However, the scheme may not be as useful in all cases. If you are typically paid immediately at the point when you make a sale or if your business often reclaims more VAT than it pays out the scheme may offer little or no advantage. The same applies to businesses that make continuous supplies of services, where the VAT treatment might not align neatly with cash receipts.

If the scheme is not proving worthwhile, businesses can leave the scheme at the end of a VAT accounting period and return to the standard method of VAT accounting. However, for the right businesses the VAT Cash Accounting Scheme can offer significant benefits.

To join the scheme, a business must have a VAT taxable turnover of £1.35 million or less in the next 12 months. Once in the scheme, a business can continue using it until their turnover exceeds £1.6 million.

Recently, a clear legal precedent confirmed that the nature of an individual's work is determined by the reality of the actual employment relationship rather than by arbitrary titles. Mr. Gooch worked for the British Free Range Egg Producers Association (BFREPA) from 1 November 2011 until 26 April 2024, initially as a Policy Director on a "contracted services basis" for 2.5 days per week. The organisation, originally an unincorporated association, subsequently became an incorporated company in 2023 (BFREPA Ltd.), although the nature of its work was unaltered.

As Mr. Gooch's role evolved, so his compensation increased and, by 2016, he had effectively been promoted to Chief Executive of Services. Throughout his 12.5 years of engagement, he consistently submitted monthly invoices and was paid a retainer due to his self-employed status, without formally establishing a limited company. In February 2023, BFREPA's leadership expressed concern that their arrangement with Mr. Gooch looked remarkably similar to an employment relationship rather than a self-employed contract, even suggesting that the HMRC would likely classify him as an employee.

As a consequence, in March 2023, BFREPA gave him 12 months' notice of termination, and he continued working until April 2024, at which point his email access was disabled, and he received a letter confirming that his contract would not be renewed. Mr. Gooch duly lodged claims against both defendants for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, unpaid holiday, wrongful dismissal for failure to pay statutory notice, and breach of contract relating to pension auto-enrolment. 

The Tribunal ruled that the claimant was a de facto employee, working under a contract of employment as defined by Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and Section 88(2) of the Pensions Act 2008. The Tribunal further concluded that personal service was a core requirement of the contract, one which contained no general substitution clause, and that the extent of the control was consistent with an employer-employee relationship for a senior employee alongside other strong indicators of a permanent employment relationship. The contracts also contained restrictive clauses that limited his ability to work for other companies in the same sector, a feature more commonly found in employment contracts than in contracts for service. 

This ruling provides a clear and detailed example of how a tribunal will look beyond the contractual terms to assess whether a person is an employee or a self-employed contractor. Employers cannot rely on a "contract for services" or a person's self-employed status to avoid the legal obligations of an employer. Instead, tribunals will scrutinise key factors such as the mutuality of the obligations, the degree of control, and the extent of integration in the business. Employers who treat long-term contractors like employees—providing them with a fixed monthly retainer, dictating their hours, and effectively integrating them into the business—risk having them reclassified as employees, and HR departments should ensure that contracts reflect the true nature of the relationship to avoid repercussions.