Government to close business rates loophole
Many second home owners use a loophole to avoid council tax on the property. However, the government has announced that new rules will apply to prevent abuse from April next year. What’s going on?

Under the current system, owners of second properties in England can avoid a council tax bill if there is an intention to let the property to holiday makers. This brings the property into the business rates regime and, as a result, small businesses rates relief can be claimed. The problem is that many second home owners are declaring an intention to let their property, when in reality they just remain empty for most of the time.
From April 2023, the rules will change so that only genuine holiday lettings will qualify for the relief, bringing non-qualifying properties back into the charge to council tax. A property will only be assessed under the business rates regime if the owner can provide evidence that:
- it will be available for letting commercially, as self-catering accommodation, for short periods totalling at least 140 days in the coming year;
- during the previous year, it was available for letting commercially, as self-catering accommodation, for short periods totalling at least 140 days; and
- during the previous year, it was actually let commercially, as self-catering accommodation, for short periods totalling at least 70 days.
Related Topics
-
Delay salary to save tax
As a company owner manager, you decide when to take income from your business. If that’s your only source of income, tax planning is relatively simple but it’s trickier if you have other sources. What’s the best strategy to improve tax efficiency?
-
Loan written off: are you in HMRC’s crosshairs?
HMRC is writing to directors that took a loan from their company that was later written off or released. What should you do if you receive a letter?
-
Cutting the cost of a company car
You want to help your young son replace the ancient car he currently drives. The plan is for your company to buy it but for the running costs to be met by your son. That’s fine with him but is there a more tax and cost-effective alternative?