With potential Labour government changes by 2026, what specific buy-to-let tax reliefs or allowances are most at risk, and how should I restructure my portfolio now to minimise impact on profitability if Section 24 is further tightened or Capital Gains Tax rules change?
Quick Answer
Key buy-to-let tax reliefs at risk include Section 24 mortgage interest relief and Capital Gains Tax allowances. Investors should review their portfolio structure, especially the use of limited companies, to minimise the impact of potential changes.
With the prospect of a Labour government in the UK, property investors are evaluating potential changes to tax rules that could significantly impact buy-to-let profitability. Specific reliefs and allowances are considered most vulnerable to reform, particularly those affecting individual landlords.
### What specific tax reliefs are most at risk for buy-to-let investors?
Several key tax reliefs and allowances for buy-to-let investors are widely considered to be at risk under a potential Labour government, primarily impacting individual landlords and those holding residential property. The most prominent among these is the current system for **mortgage interest relief**, which, since April 2020, has been restricted to a basic rate tax credit of 20% on finance costs for individual landlords. There is speculation this 20% tax credit could be further reduced or even abolished entirely, shifting the tax burden to an investor's full rental income before finance costs are considered. For example, if a landlord has £10,000 in mortgage interest and £20,000 in rental income, they currently get a £2,000 tax credit. If this were removed, their taxable income would increase by £10,000. For a higher rate taxpayer, this would mean an additional £4,200 in tax (42% of £10,000) from April 2027 rates, on top of any existing tax liability.
Another significant area of risk is **Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on residential property**. Currently, basic rate taxpayers pay 18% and higher/additional rate taxpayers pay 24% on residential property gains, after an annual exempt amount of £3,000. There is a strong possibility that CGT rates could be aligned more closely with Income Tax rates, potentially meaning a hike to 22% for basic rate taxpayers and 42% or 47% for higher/additional rate taxpayers from April 2027. This could substantially increase the tax liability upon sale. For instance, a £100,000 gain currently taxed at 24% (for a higher rate taxpayer) would result in a £24,000 tax bill, minus the £3,000 allowance. If the rate were to jump to 42%, the same gain would incur a £42,000 tax bill, a difference of £18,000. The annual exempt amount, already reduced to £3,000, could also be further diminished or removed.
The **treatment of furnished holiday lets (FHLs)** is another area of potential change. FHLs currently benefit from several tax advantages not available to standard buy-to-let properties, including capital allowances on furniture and fixtures, more flexible rules for pension contributions, and eligibility for CGT reliefs such as Business Asset Rollover Relief and Gift Hold-Over Relief. These reliefs effectively treat FHLs more like a business than a passive investment. Removing or restricting these benefits would bring FHLs in line with other residential property, removing a key incentive for investors in this niche.
Additionally, **Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT)** rates, particularly the 5% additional dwelling surcharge, could be reviewed. While a complete abolition is unlikely, adjustments to thresholds or a reconsideration of the surcharge itself could occur. Although less likely to be abolished, the first-time buyer relief, which provides 0% on the first £300k and 5% on £300k-£500k for properties up to £500k, could also be subject to review or modification. Any increase in SDLT for investors would increase the upfront cost of property acquisition, directly impacting investment viability.
### How would a tightening of Section 24 or CGT changes specifically affect individual landlords versus limited companies?
The impact of further tightening Section 24 or changing CGT rules would be distinct for individual landlords compared to those operating through a limited company. For **individual landlords**, any further restriction on the 20% finance cost tax credit would directly increase their income tax liability. As individual landlords cannot deduct mortgage interest from their rental income, a reduced or abolished credit means a greater portion of their gross rental income becomes taxable at their personal income tax rate (which could be 22%, 42%, or 47% from April 2027). This directly erodes net rental yield. For example, a higher rate taxpayer with £1,000 in finance costs currently receives a £200 tax credit. If this credit were removed, their taxable income would increase by £1,000, leading to an additional £420 tax bill (at a 42% rate), effectively turning a £200 benefit into a £420 penalty.
For **limited companies**, Section 24 has no direct impact because companies have always been able to deduct all finance costs as a legitimate business expense before calculating their taxable profits. Therefore, a further tightening or abolition of the 20% tax credit for individuals would not affect limited companies. This is a significant advantage, as the company only pays Corporation Tax on its net profit, which is 19% for profits under £50,000, 25% for profits over £250,000, or a marginal relief between these thresholds. This distinction becomes even more pronounced with higher interest rates, as the full deduction significantly reduces a company's taxable base.
Regarding **Capital Gains Tax**, individual landlords face rates of 18% (basic) or 24% (higher/additional) on residential property gains, with a £3,000 annual exempt amount. If these rates increase to align with income tax (e.g., 42% or 47% for higher earners), the tax burden on disposal would be substantially higher. For a limited company, when a property is sold, the gain is treated as part of the company's trading profits and is subject to Corporation Tax at the prevailing rates (19% or 25%). This can be a considerable saving compared to potential individual CGT rates. For example, a £100,000 capital gain would incur a £24,000 tax for a higher-rate individual, but only £19,000 for a small company, representing a £5,000 saving. While dividends paid out from these profits would be subject to further personal income tax, the deferral and potential for strategic dividend planning (e.g., lower dividend tax rates, spreading income) can offer tax efficiency not available to individuals.
### Should I restructure my portfolio into a limited company to minimise impact?
Restructuring your portfolio into a limited company is a strategy many landlords have already adopted and one that could be beneficial to minimise the impact of potential tax changes, particularly concerning Section 24 and Capital Gains Tax. The key driver for this is the different tax treatment of finance costs and capital gains within a corporate structure. Limited companies can deduct 100% of their mortgage interest and other finance costs from their rental income before calculating Corporation Tax, providing a direct reduction in taxable profits. This contrasts sharply with individual landlords, who only receive a 20% tax credit on finance costs. For an investor with significant leverage, this difference can amount to thousands of pounds annually.
For example, if an individual landlord has £15,000 in annual mortgage interest, they currently receive a £3,000 tax credit (20% of £15,000). If this credit were removed, and they were a higher rate taxpayer (42% from April 2027), their taxable income would increase by £15,000, leading to an additional £6,300 in tax. A limited company, however, would deduct the full £15,000 interest, reducing its taxable profits by that amount, thereby saving £2,850 in Corporation Tax (at 19%). This substantial difference highlights the immediate benefit of a corporate structure under a potentially tighter Section 24 regime.
Regarding Capital Gains Tax, transferring properties to a limited company means any future sale gains are subject to Corporation Tax (19% or 25%) rather than the potentially higher individual CGT rates (18-24% now, possibly 22-47% in the future). This can protect a significant portion of your profits on disposal. However, it is crucial to understand the costs and complexities involved in transferring properties. This typically involves paying SDLT again on the market value of the properties being transferred, which for an additional dwelling is 5% on the £0-£125k portion, 7% on £125k-£250k, 10% on £250k-£925k, 15% on £925k-£1.5M, and 17% above £1.5M. For a £300,000 property, this would mean £15,000 in SDLT. There may also be Capital Gains Tax payable on the transfer of the properties from individual ownership to the company if they have appreciated in value, although business incorporation relief might apply in certain specific circumstances, such as for genuine property businesses.
It is also important to consider the increased administrative burden and costs of operating a limited company, including annual accounts, company secretarial duties, and potentially higher mortgage arrangement fees. The decision to restructure should be based on a thorough analysis of current portfolio size, future growth plans, individual tax circumstances, and the specific costs of incorporation. This involves weighing the upfront costs of SDLT and CGT on transfer against the long-term tax savings on income and future capital gains, particularly if the individual plans to retain properties for many years or expand their portfolio significantly.
### What are the key considerations when forming a limited company for property investment?
When forming a limited company for property investment, several critical factors must be considered beyond the tax advantages. Firstly, the **cost of transfer** is significant. Transferring existing properties into a limited company can trigger Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) on the market value of the properties, with the additional dwelling surcharge applying. For a portfolio of, say, three properties valued at £250,000 each, the SDLT could be substantial, approaching £26,250 (calculated as £250k x 7% for each property, assuming it falls into the £125k-£250k band with the 5% surcharge, ignoring the lower band). This upfront cost must be amortised over the expected holding period to determine if the long-term tax savings outweigh it. Additionally, if the properties have appreciated significantly, there could be Capital Gains Tax triggered on the transfer from personal ownership to the company, unless specific reliefs apply.
Secondly, **financing** through a limited company can differ. While more buy-to-let lenders now cater to limited companies, the mortgage products can sometimes have higher interest rates or arrangement fees compared to personal buy-to-let mortgages. The Bank of England base rate is 3.75%, but BTL mortgage rates for limited companies will vary by lender and product; always compare the latest rates. Lenders also apply Interest Cover Ratio (ICR) stress tests, which are typically more stringent for limited companies, often requiring 140% or higher rental coverage at a 5.5% notional pay rate, making it harder for some properties to qualify for finance.
Thirdly, **administrative burden** increases. A limited company requires annual accounts to be filed with Companies House and HMRC, often necessitating an accountant's services. There are ongoing compliance obligations, such as maintaining statutory records and filing confirmation statements. These additional costs and responsibilities must be factored into the overall investment strategy. The company structure also means that profits are retained within the company and must be extracted, typically as dividends, which are then subject to personal income tax (dividend tax rates) in the hands of the director/shareholder. This two-tier taxation needs careful planning.
Finally, **inheritance tax planning** is a complex area for limited company structures. While properties held personally might qualify for certain reliefs (e.g., business property relief in some cases of active trading), the company structure introduces its own set of considerations. Expert advice is crucial to ensure the structure aligns with long-term wealth transfer goals, as holding properties within a company doesn't automatically confer business property relief for inheritance tax purposes unless the activities are considered a genuine trading business rather than simply investment. The overall suitability of a limited company depends heavily on the investor's specific financial situation, portfolio size, and future objectives, making tailored professional advice essential.
### What are the implications for long-term portfolio growth and wealth accumulation?
For long-term portfolio growth and wealth accumulation, the structure used for property investment can have profound implications, particularly if tax policies shift as anticipated. Operating through a limited company generally facilitates **reinvestment of profits** more tax-efficiently. Since net rental profits (after mortgage interest and other expenses) are taxed at Corporation Tax rates (19% or 25%) rather than higher personal income tax rates (22-47%), more capital remains within the company to acquire additional properties or pay down existing mortgages. This compounding effect of reinvested, lower-taxed profits accelerates portfolio expansion and wealth accumulation. For example, if an individual extracts £20,000 in profit, they might pay £8,400 in tax (42%), leaving £11,600. A company, however, pays £3,800 (19%), leaving £16,200 available for reinvestment, a difference of £4,600 per £20,000 profit.
Furthermore, the corporate structure offers **greater flexibility for succession planning** and intergenerational wealth transfer. Shares in a company can be transferred more easily than direct property ownership, and this can be part of a broader estate planning strategy, potentially mitigating future inheritance tax liabilities. While complex, a well-structured company can be a powerful vehicle for passing on wealth to future generations. The structure allows for different classes of shares and shareholder agreements, providing mechanisms to involve family members or future investors in a controlled manner.
However, it's not without its drawbacks. The **costs associated with setting up and maintaining** a limited company, including professional fees for legal and accounting services, need to be factored into the long-term financial model. These ongoing costs, though deductible for the company, can erode smaller profits, making the corporate structure less suitable for very small portfolios or those with limited growth ambitions. The initial SDLT and CGT costs on transfer can also significantly delay the point at which the benefits of incorporation begin to outweigh these initial outlays, requiring a long-term commitment to property investment via this route.
Finally, a key consideration is **exit strategy**. While gains within a company are taxed at Corporation Tax rates, extracting those profits from the company, for example, upon liquidation or through dividends, will incur further personal tax liabilities. This 'double taxation' needs careful planning. However, for those aiming to build a substantial portfolio that generates significant passive income for retirement, or eventually sell the entire company, the overall tax leakage can still be lower than holding properties personally, especially given the potential trajectory of individual CGT rates. Therefore, the decision to incorporate should be driven by a clear understanding of both the immediate and long-term financial implications, always seeking professional tax and legal advice specific to individual circumstances and objectives.
### Can existing individual landlords benefit from the main residence relief if they switch to a company structure?
No, existing individual landlords typically cannot benefit from main residence relief (or Private Residence Relief - PRR) if they switch to a company structure for their investment properties. Main residence relief is a specific Capital Gains Tax relief that applies only to an individual's primary dwelling. It exempts all or part of the gain made on the sale of a property that has been their main home for all or part of the ownership period.
When properties are transferred from individual ownership to a limited company, they cease to be held by an individual and become assets of a corporate entity. A company, by its nature, cannot have a 'main residence,' and therefore, main residence relief does not apply to properties held within a limited company. The key point is that the company is a separate legal entity, and the properties are no longer seen as belonging to the individual for tax purposes, but rather to the company. Any future capital gains on these properties within the company would be subject to Corporation Tax, not individual CGT, and thus PRR becomes irrelevant.
Furthermore, if an individual landlord has lived in one of their investment properties at some point and might have claimed a partial main residence relief had they sold it personally, transferring it to a company would crystallise the gain up to the point of transfer. Any PRR applicable up to that point would be assessed on the deemed disposal from the individual to the company. Post-transfer, any subsequent gain is solely within the company structure and subject to corporate tax rules. Therefore, the ability to claim PRR is tied to individual ownership and occupation, not corporate ownership. This is a critical distinction that often requires careful planning when considering a portfolio restructure.
Steven's Take
The potential for a Labour government to target buy-to-let tax reliefs, particularly Section 24 and Capital Gains Tax, is a significant concern for many of my clients. From my perspective, the shift towards incorporating investment portfolios has been a strategic move for many years now, largely driven by the Section 24 changes that began in 2017. If you're an individual landlord with a leveraged portfolio, further restrictions on finance cost relief would directly hit your take-home income. Similarly, a substantial hike in CGT could make selling assets very expensive. While incorporation involves upfront costs like SDLT and potentially CGT on transfer, for many, the long-term benefits of deducting 100% of mortgage interest and paying Corporation Tax on gains can outweigh these. It's about modelling the numbers specific to your portfolio and understanding the new break-even points, rather than reacting to headlines. This is about building a sustainable, tax-efficient legacy.
What You Can Do Next
1: Review your current portfolio's income and expenditure, paying close attention to mortgage interest payments. Understand your current net taxable rental income as an individual landlord versus what it would be within a limited company by working through the Corporation Tax calculation.
2: Obtain a valuation for each property in your portfolio to assess potential Capital Gains Tax liability if you were to transfer them to a limited company. This step is crucial for calculating the upfront costs of incorporation.
3: Consult with a specialist property tax accountant who understands both individual and corporate property taxation. Discuss the specific implications of transferring your properties, including SDLT, CGT on incorporation, and the ongoing administrative costs of running a limited company. They can advise on whether business incorporation relief might apply to your specific circumstances.
4: Engage with a mortgage broker experienced in limited company buy-to-let mortgages. Understand the current lending criteria, interest rates, and arrangement fees for corporate structures, as these can differ from personal mortgages. Compare these costs to your current personal mortgage arrangements.
5: Research your local council's specific policy on second home council tax premiums on their official website (e.g., [Your_Council_Name].gov.uk) to understand any local discretion being applied from April 2025, although this typically won't affect AST-let BTLs.
6: Model various tax scenarios for the next 5-10 years, comparing your current individual landlord position against a limited company structure. Include assumptions for potential changes to CGT rates, the 20% finance cost credit, and dividend tax rates. Use these financial projections to inform your restructuring decision.
7: Consider the long-term succession and estate planning implications with a solicitor who specialises in wills and trusts, especially for company structures. Understand how transferring properties into a company might affect your inheritance tax position and how shares can be passed on to beneficiaries.
Get Expert Coaching
Ready to take action on tax & accounting? Join Steven Potter's Property Freedom Framework for comprehensive, hands-on property investment coaching.