Capital gains tax

Capital gains tax

What is Capital Gains Tax?

Capital Gains Tax (‘CGT’) is a tax on the profit or gain made when selling or otherwise ‘disposing of’ an asset. An asset is usually disposed of when the owner ceases to own it—eg they sell it, give it away as a gift, transfer it to someone else or exchange it for something else.

In some cases the owner is treated as if they have disposed of an asset eg a building is destroyed and a capital sum received from the insurers by way of compensation.

It is the gain made—not the amount of money received for the asset—that is taxed.

For information on rates of CGT, see Practice Notes: Introductory guide to CGT and Capital gains tax (CGT)—how to calculate a capital gain.

Typical types of property

When property such as a building, land or lease is sold or otherwise disposed of CGT may be payable.

Typical types of property include:

•
an investment property (eg a buy-to-let property)
•
a second home (eg a holiday home in the UK or overseas)
•
business premises (eg a shop

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property News

Microwave alone insufficient to amount to ‘cooking facilities’ in HMO test (Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth BC)

Local Government analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the definition of cooking facilities as part of the test for whether a building is an HMO set out in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) and in particular whether that term was satisfied by the presence of a microwave (alone). The property concerned had no other facilities for cooking. The UT held that the presence of a microwave on its own was not sufficient to amount to cooking facilities such as to take the property out of the definition of an HMO and as such held that the property was part of an HMO and subject to the controls of HA 2004. Written by Josef Cannon KC, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

BPF analysis finds 81% of commercial buildings below proposed EPC standards

The British Property Federation (BPF) has published its annual analysis of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings for commercial buildings across seven major English cities and found that 81% of stock remains below EPC B. The analysis covered all commercial asset classes in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. It showed that 3% of buildings are rated EPC A and 16% EPC B, leaving around 190 million square metres of commercial floorspace below the proposed future minimum standard, despite year-on-year improvements of only 1–2%. Manchester and London performed best, with 22% and 21% of buildings respectively rated A or B. The Federation attributed the slow pace of improvement to the government’s failure to respond to its 2021 consultation on minimum energy efficiency standards, which proposed targets of EPC C by 2027 and EPC B by 2030, stating that the continued lack of clarity is delaying investment and upgrades and risks large parts of the commercial estate becoming unlettable.

RSH publishes Rent Standard 2026 and guidance on rent increase limits

The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has published the Rent Standard 2026, which sets out the requirements governing how registered providers must set and increase social housing rents from 1 April 2026. The Rent Standard reflects the government’s revised Policy Statement on Rents for Social Housing. Under the standard, registered providers will generally be permitted to increase rents by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) plus 1% each year. It also permits additional increases where rents are below the relevant formula rent, subject to specified limits, allowing rents to move gradually towards formula levels.

Proprietary estoppel and unenforceable land contracts (Conway v Conway)

Private Client analysis: In Conway v Conway, the High Court clarified the interplay between proprietary estoppel and the statutory formalities required for contracts for the sale of land under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). The case concerned an appeal from a first instance decision ordering specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land as relief in a proprietary estoppel claim. In allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Michael Green held that that proprietary estoppel could not be used to obtain specific performance of an otherwise unenforceable oral contract for the sale of land, but remitted the question of equitable compensation to the County Court due to the absence of alternative relief in the pleadings. The decision clarifies that LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 bars relief that has the effect of enforcing void contracts while leaving open other forms of equitable relief that can satisfy the equity arising in estoppel cases. Written by Cameron Stocks, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers, who acted for the appellant at first instance and on appeal to the High Court.