≡ Menu

Watch out for the capital gains tax turnover trap

A funny meme image to illustrate the CGT reporting trap

Note from July 2024: Things have changed. The ‘turnover allowance’ detailed below has been replaced with a fixed reporting level for total traded chargeable assets of £50,000 – if you’re registered for self-assessment– or if your total gains exceed your capital gains allowance. Hold your investments inside ISAs and SIPPs and you don’t have to report anything! I’m preserving the post below for posterity.

Most people rightly believe capital gains tax (CGT) is not a tax they’ll pay.

Buy-to-let landlords may face a CGT bill when they sell up, due to the size their one-off property gains.

But private investors in shares and funds can usually buy and sell within tax shelters – ISAs and SIPPS1. This avoids CGT altogether.

By using shelters you also sidestep the hassle of reporting to HMRC all your trades and profits.

The ability of ISAs and pensions to swallow your cash contributions like Pac-Man coming off a crash diet means even the mildly wealthy need not pay CGT.

Okay, so you may have too much money to shovel it all into tax shelters in a particular year. An individual’s pension and ISA combined can take as much as £60,000 annually though2, so even for moderately high earners, this usually only happens with an inheritance, a bonus, or when a bank heist pays off.

Once your allowances are used up, you may decide to invest in shares and other assets in unsheltered accounts. Cash in the bank is paying diddly, after all.

Fret not!

Paying CGT on future gains is still far from inevitable.

Gimme unshelter

For one thing you can offset some capital gains with losses. (And if you never have any of those then you’ve little to glean from us!)

There also exists a fairly generous annual CGT allowance. As I write it’s £12,300 in total realised capital gains in a year.3

If you have unsheltered shares, funds, or other taxable assets and they go up in value, you can exploit your CGT allowance to defuse your gains over one or more years by reducing your holding piecemeal.

It’s a faff and when markets rise quickly you can be left with a lot of defusing to do. Let’s file that in the Nice Problem To Have folder.4

Always use tax shelters to the fullest extent possible – even if you believe you’ll never exceed your annual CGT allowance – because, well, you never know.

I have an unsheltered holding that has gone up ten-fold in barely five years. At the current pace it’s going to take me until my sixties to defuse it.5

The CGT allowance could be reduced or scrapped, at some point. We shouldn’t take it for granted.

For now though, CGT is an optional tax for most people, at least with some forward thinking.

Sympathy for the Devil

All that preamble is a reminder as to how CGT works – a gentle reassurance.

Because like those teens in a horror movie who arrive at an abandoned campsite with beers, bikinis, and a fatal disdain for the ravings of a madman who warned them not to sleep overnight at Lake Morte…

…there’s a trap!

As pitfalls go, it’s very minor. Nobody will lose a limb. Possibly not even any money, depending on how penalty-happy HMRC is.

But it’s still something to be aware of.

Here the crucial section from the official guidance:

You do not have to pay tax if your total taxable gains are under your Capital Gains Tax allowance.

You still need to report your gains in your tax return if both of the following apply:

  • the total amount you sold the assets for was more than 4 times your allowance
  • you’re registered for Self Assessment

The trap, you see, is a reporting issue, rather than an issue of taxes you’re mistakenly evading.

Harlem shuffle

At the time of writing the CGT allowance is £12,300.

This means that if you sell ‘chargeable’ assets that in total are worth more than four times the allowance – £49,200 – in a year, then you should report all your taxable gains that year to HMRC.

That is assuming you’re registered for self-assessment tax returns, which I’m confident most people who find themselves in such a position will be.

The first thing to note is that you don’t have to have breached your CGT allowance for the sale(/s) to be reportable.

If you sold an unsheltered shareholding you bought for £50,000 for £50,001 – a mere £1 gain – then you should report the trade to HMRC on the relevant supplemental pages of your tax return, because you’ve disposed of more than £49,200 worth of chargeable assets.

Even more slippery, it’s the ‘total amount’ that matters.

Let’s say you only have £5,000 in your non-ISA dealing account. You use that money to day trade, because you’re a silly billy.

You’d only have to turnover your portfolio every ten weeks or so – in terms of total sales – to again breach that total disposal limit of four times the allowance in a year.

Turning over a portfolio like that is quite easily done if you trade a lot – and especially if you’ve more than my illustrative £5,000 in play.6

A platform like Freetrade7 with its zero commission makes manic trading much more practicable than in the old days, with only stamp duty and spreads still payable on each trade.

So you can easily see how a trigger-happy trader could get to the point of having to show their workings to HMRC on a tax return.

Wild horses

In my experience very few people know about the four times reporting clause.

Indeed I once spoke to a very senior figure in a Fintech firm that was moving into share dealing who had no idea it even existed! (I was querying him about his plans for helping clients with any tax reporting, which is often still poorly done by platforms.)

What would happen to you if you breached the limit and didn’t report the relevant disposals to HMRC?

I’ve no idea. I’m not a tax expert or an accountant.

I can’t recall hearing about anyone getting into trouble. If you know differently, please comment below.

However a good rule to live by is Don’t Piss Off The Taxman. Personally I live by the letter of the tax law. I need my beauty sleep.

Easily the best course of action is to do your investing within ISAs and SIPPs. The paperwork and record-trawling required to report a string of trades for CGT purposes is tedious in the extreme.

It could be even worse if you haven’t kept your own records. You might discover your broker has deleted the old details of your trades. (I’ve seen this happen after platform mergers.) Without your own records you’ve yet another problem to deal with.

If you have sizeable sums that need investing outside of tax shelters, then the reporting rule is another (minor) thing to keep in mind when you decide how and what to buy, and when to sell.

  1. Self-invested personal pensions. []
  2. Simplifying in the case of pensions, where for example limits are determined by your earnings and prior contributions. []
  3. In the UK, ‘gains’ means you actually sold the asset for a profit – as opposed to simply owning something that is showing a paper profit. []
  4. One snag with this strategy is if you become a forced seller – perhaps because a company you own is taken over and your shares are bought for cash. This can crystalize a CGT liability that you had planned to defuse over several years. Annoying! []
  5. Again, the Nice Problem To Have folder tends to fill up quickly when you’re making capital gains. []
  6. Cover your ears, but my *sheltered* portfolio turnover is approaching 400% this year! Remember, unlike my co-blogger The Accumulator, I’m a crazed active investor. I don’t recommend it for most. []
  7. Affiliate link. []
{ 23 comments }

Weekend reading: Time to switch

Our Weekend Reading logo

What caught our eye this week.

Hello campers, TA here – standing in for TI, who’s off on his annual hols this week. That means topping up his monitor tan in some seedy foreign hotel instead of his seedy London lair. Ah well, a change is as good as rest as they say.

Right, with that piece of libel out of the way, I understand there’s a big event coming up on 4 July that simply cannot be ignored. That’s right, my assault on the Bitchfield pie-eating record. Oh, and this news just in: there’s a General Election on, too.

So as reluctant as I am to spend all day fighting fires in the comments section, I can’t rightfully ignore the political earthquake incoming.

Personally, I chart a wavy political line: weaving around the traffic cones of the centre ground.

I’ll happily borrow my opinions and remedies from the sane of the centre-left and centre-right. My vote goes to whoever I think will best govern in the interests of the whole country.

In 2010, I felt Labour could do with a spell in opposition. They needed time to think again.

So here we are in 2024 and we’re faced with a choice: more of the same or time for a change?

As ever, it’s Red vs Blue.

But governments shouldn’t be judged like football teams … “I’m Accrington Stanley until I die,” or whatever.

Governments should be judged like football managers: on their track record.

Why as citizens would we offer politicians our unconditional support?

Either they put the country on a sound footing and create the necessary conditions for prosperity, or we turf them out.

It’s the only leverage we have. If you’ve done a bad job, you have to go. And, my god, have any of the country’s problems appreciably improved over the last 14 years?

  • Low productivity
  • Economic competitiveness
  • Public services: NHS, social care, education, welfare
  • Housing
  • National debt
  • Immigration (interpret this according to your political taste)
  • Regional imbalances
  • Environmental protections

How about the two big promises of the last election: Brexit and Levelling Up?

Whatever you think of those two issues, it’s telling that the Conservatives aren’t shouting about their achievements on either count.

They haven’t got a vision beyond staying in power: witness ad hoc policy gimmicks like National Service. Tories were pooh-poohing that idea only weeks before the election was called.

They’re afraid to take difficult decisions to solve the country’s problems: hence the lack of progress on planning reform or social care.

And now they’re laying traps for the next Government by ruling out every tax rise they can think of. The objective being what? To keep the country in a mess until we fall back into their arms? Love it. Essentially, they’re saying: “If we can’t have you, nobody can.”

This from the people who gaslit us with ‘fiscal drag’ – raising the UK tax burden to its highest level since 1950, while simultaneously claiming they’re cutting taxes because they’ve knocked a few quid off National Insurance.

Not to mention the chaos of four prime ministers in five years – at least one of whom was manifestly unfit for office.

Casting a vote for this lot again is like going back to a bad boyfriend who says it’ll be different this time.

You may doubt Labour. “All politicians are the same,” is the cop-out defence I keep hearing. Well, let’s find out shall we?

The ire of the electorate should be biblical. Not because ‘beating the Tories’ is an inherently good thing. But because all politicians need to know that if they screw us around, they’re out.

That if they spend their time spinning and lying and fudging and faction-fighting instead of mending and sorting then they’re goners.

Remember how Boris Johnson’s 80-seat majority was meant to be unassailable? He was being talked about as a two-term prime minister because Labour needed an impossible swing to overturn their historic 2019 defeat.

Thankfully those political assumptions are in the shredder. Unquestioned party loyalty is breaking down. Tribalism is dissolving.

So, if Labour get in, they’re on notice. The electorate is volatile and vengeful.

That’s how it should be.

Some may still be stuck in the trenches, unable to overcome their fear of the Red team. But in truth, neither of our two main parties are radical. They’re usually only elected when the moderates are in charge.

Can things only get better? Definitely not. But tribalism doesn’t help us. It’s the political equivalent of auto-renewing your subscription. You will be taken advantage of.

So it’s time to switch supplier. I’m not expecting massively better service just because I’ve moved from EDF to E.ON or whoever. But it’s the only way to keep them both in line. Hence, I say:

  • Vote tactically
  • Vote on record
  • Do not reward failure

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 110 comments }

FIRE in the hole [Members]

Moguls logo for members

I believe – Finumus here – that Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) types give leveraging your mortgage to invest in equities an undeserved free pass.

I think it’s unnecessarily risky. And my opinion is shared by one of our fictitious protagonists today – a couple of 30-year old newlyweds named Ed and Caitlin.

This article can be read by selected Monevator members. Please see our membership plans and consider joining! Already a member? Sign in here.
{ 19 comments }
Minimum pension age increase: who’s caught out and who’s protected  post image

The normal minimum pension age (NMPA) is increasing from age 55 to 57 on 6 April 2028. Some people’s pensions protect them from the increase but the benefit can be lost if you transfer out.

Yet others could be caught out by a weird time-glitch.

The legislation as written will allow some to access their pension at age 55, but then lock them out again because they won’t be 57 when the pension age rises!

This piece of bureaucratic madness could affect over one million people according to former pensions minister, Steve Webb, who sounded the alarm in This Is Money.

It’s yet another pensions minefield and – if you’re not following the Department for Work and Pensions award-winning communications campaign – you might not know what’s going on. [Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, y’know – Ed]

In this post we’ll cover who’s liable to lose access to their pension, and how to tell if your scheme offers a Protected Pension Age (PPA) of 55 or 56.1

Now you see it, now you don’t

Up to 5 April 2028 most people can tap into their pension from age 55.

Overnight, from 6 April 2028 the minimum pension age rises to 57.

Critically, there’s no transitional arrangement in place.

So if you’re not 57 on 6 April 2028, you will generally not be able to access your pension. Even if you were doing so because you were over-55 before that date!

In the case of someone born on 5 April 1973, they will have precisely 24 hours to enjoy their pension before it closes for another two years.

If that’s you, I recommend using a pension provider famed for their speedy customer service.

You might think such a ludicrous situation would be cleared up. But currently this is the state-of play – despite warnings from both within and without government.

Anyone born after 6 April 1971 but before 6 April 1973 is stuck in this bizarro world loophole.

The obvious solution is to allow anyone who started accessing their pension before the magic date to carry on as they were.

But that isn’t happening.

The law as it stands simply snaps shut your pension pot again until you’re age 57.

What does the Government say?

The Treasury referenced the problem in a July 2021 paper:

The Government also acknowledges the importance of establishing a clear position on the transitional arrangements. For example, members who do not have a PPA and have reached age 55 but not age 57 by 6 April 2028 and for whom a transitional issue may arise.

The Government will provide further advice on the proposed transitional arrangements and provisions in due course.

No such advice has been published. The change in the NMPA was written into law by the Finance Act 2022.

Since then, silence.

What does HMRC say?

Essentially: “Nothing to do with us, guv.”

If you search around the issue, you’ll find this query on the HMRC Community Forums where someone asks if they’ll be stopped taking their pension.

Three HMRC respondents duck the question by either linking to information that doesn’t help or offering a bureaucratic dead-bat:

Sorry, we cannot comment on future events as legislation may change.

What do others say?

Some pension providers are flagging the problem.

Fidelity says:

As you’ll be 55 before 6 April 2028 you’ll be able to take your pension benefits at any time from your 55th birthday up to 6 April 2028.

It’s currently unclear whether you’ll have to stop taking pension payments after 6 April 2028 (such as regular pension drawdown payments) until you reach the age of 57.

While government-backed financial educator Money Helper cautions:

People born between 6 April 1971 and 5 April 1973 may be caught in a transitional phase, possibly accessing their pensions at 55, then losing access from 6 April 2028 until they reach age 57.

This is definitely a thing

I’m personally caught up in this. And I must admit I’d assumed some kindly government fixer would close the loophole.

It just seems nuts. But there’s a reason why political satire has such a rich tradition.

And now there’s less than four years to go. The planning window is perilously short if nobody does anything about this.

One option is to take enough cash out of your pension to cover the period when it’s padlocked again.

A 5 April 1973 baby will need to withdraw an extra two years of cash to get them through the tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30.

That’s likely to mean a big tax hit, unless you use your tax-free cash.

Check out this piece on the pension drawdown rules to understand how to use phased drawdown to take the tax-free cash you need without overwhelming your ISA allowance.

The article also covers the emergency tax issues associated with drawdown and the disadvantages of taking uncrystallised funds pension lump sum (UFPLS) payments.

Personally, I’m not keen on incinerating tax-free cash that can be used to grow your future tax-free space in ISAs, if left invested. Especially as it seems likely that taxes will rise in the future.

But everyone has their own priorities. Some may decide to take the tax hit at 20% but use tax-free cash to avoid tipping over the higher thresholds, for example.

Is your pension age protected?

Some pensions can be accessed at age 55 even after the 6 April 2028 NMPA rise.

This Protected Pension Age (PPA) benefit applies to:

  • A pension scheme that gave its members the unqualified right to take benefits at age 55 under their scheme rules on 11 February 2021.
  • You also had to be a member of the scheme before 4 November 2021, or in the midst of a transfer.
  • An ‘unqualified right’ means that you do not need the consent of anyone else (for example, trustees or scheme administrators) to take your pension benefits.

It’s best to check the status of your pensions directly with the scheme administrators.

I didn’t think any of my pensions qualified. But then I discovered that Fidelity’s SIPP offers a PPA of 55, providing you held it before 4 November 2021.

Stick or twist

You can lose your PPA if you transfer your pension. A new provider doesn’t have to honour your protection, so check that they will if retiring at 55 sounds nice.

But there’s a twist:

  • Money transferred from your protected scheme is ring-fenced once it hits your new pension.
  • Only that money benefits from your PPA in the future.
  • The rest of your pot (including ongoing tax relief, employer contributions and investment growth) will only be available from age 57.

But there’s… a twist within the twist!

The above rules apply if you arrange your transfer as an individual in a move known as – wait for it – an individual transfer.

But under a block transfer your past and future contributions qualify for the PPA even if the new scheme doesn’t offer any such protection.

(Ever get the impression that HMRC is run by the puzzle-loving fiend, The Celestial Toymaker?)

A block transfer involves two or more members of a pension scheme transferring to the same new scheme at the same time.

Alright, I feel like I’m addressing an ever dwindling proportion of the population with each passing sentence, so let’s finish this bit up.

Money transferred from a non-qualifying pension can gain protection if you shift it to a qualifying scheme that you joined before 4 November 2021. The People’s Pension makes this clear in their explanation of the rules. (Hat tips to Monevator readers WinterMute and PhilosoFIRE for pointing me in the right direction on this).

All the same, please ask your scheme’s administrator to confirm this in writing to you. Don’t rely on all pension schemes applying the rules the same way – the system is full of quirks and kinks.

Apparently a pension in drawdown can transfer without the loss of your PPA. But please double-check this too, as I only found one single source making that claim.

Minimum pension age rising to age 58 and beyond?

The original government plan was to tether the NMPA to the State Pension Age. The idea being that your private pensions could be ransacked no more than ten years before the State Pension.

However, this link wasn’t included in the Finance Act 2022. Perhaps it’ll be legislated for by a future Parliament. Perhaps it’s gone to the Happy Policy Unit in the Sky.

Either way, it’s not a thing for now.

What a state

Well, it’s great to see that the Government has learned the lessons of their last failure to properly inform people of looming pension changes. [Second sarcasm violation! You’re on a final warning – Ed]

I get that the time-limited pension issue only affects a thin slice of the population. But it could have quite a serious impact on those it does catch – especially as many people’s pension plans are touch-and-go anyway.

Moreover, I’m quite pessimistic about the chances of anyone bothering to solve the problem. I have a feeling it may not be the top priority of the incoming government – whoever that may be. [Fired! – Ed]

There’s one final takeaway here for anyone who’s made it this far down the page. [Hmm, still here? – Ed]

The government machine is continually screwing things up and often finds it easier to move the goalposts than to properly fix them.

So if you’re planning for the long-term, make allowances. Make your plans as generous as possible with as much wiggle room as a pair of Victorian football shorts.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Only a few schemes explicitly offer a PPA of 56. So we’ll just refer to a PPA of age 55 for the rest of the article. []
{ 33 comments }