Selling a former home: changes for 2023/24
When it comes to tax relief on the family home, there are complications for married couples and civil partners following separation. How can the new rules, which apply from April 2023, help?

Year of separation
Married couples and civil partners can transfer assets, including an interest in a property, between them on a no gain, no loss basis while living together. For tax purposes, they are treated as living together unless they are separated under a court order, deed of separation or in circumstances that are likely to be permanent, even where they live in the same property.
Old and new rules
Before 6 April 2023, the capital gains tax (CGT)-free transfer was available until the end of the tax year that a separation occurred. A welcome change for 2023/24 is that the CGT-free period has been extended until the end of the third year following the tax year of separation. This means separating couples have more time to divide their assets in a tax-efficient way. However, this isn’t the only change that has come into effect.
If the couple is granted a formal divorce prior to the end of the three-year period, the date the decree absolute is granted marks the end of the CGT-free period. However, if the transfer is made as part of an agreement connected to the divorce, there is no time limit.
Example. John and Bella separate in December 2023. A court grants their divorce in September 2026 and decrees that several assets must be transferred between them. The transfers take place in June 2027, so outside the stipulated window, but no gain, no loss treatment is available regardless.
Sale to third party
It’s common for one party to move out of the property after a separation. This can lead to a CGT charge because, other than the final nine months of ownership, private residence relief (PRR) won’t be available for the period of non-occupation. Sometimes, the former couple will agree, or a court may order, that the previous matrimonial home be sold as part of the formal financial settlement. Where this is the case, and the sale takes place after 6 April 2023, the individual that left the property can make an election to treat the former home as their main residence until the earlier of the sale date, or the date it ceases to be the remaining partner’s only or main residence.
This can only apply if the departing partner has not made a nomination in favour of another residence for the relevant period.
PRR can only apply to one residence at a time. If the departing partner acquires another property, they can’t claim PRR for the period that the former marital home continues to qualify for the relief. You would need to consider which property is likely to yield the larger gain for the relevant period before making an election.
Deferred sales
It’s also possible that, by agreement or court order, the departing partner will transfer their interest to the other and the property is subject to a deferred sale agreement/order, e.g. under a Mesher order. A new part of the legislation ensures that when a share of the profit on the eventual sale is received, it will be treated in the same way as the original transfer to the spouse and will qualify for PRR.
This prevents a CGT charge on the right to receive a capital sum “derived from an asset”, which would otherwise be treated as a separate asset to the property - and wouldn't qualify for relief..
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?