LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Matthew DuncanMatthew Duncan

Partner, Druces

Quotation Marks
will the government be willing to introduce a wealth tax in any form, let alone one as dramatic as the WTC proposes?

Covid recovery wealth tax

4 Feb 2021|Practice Notes|Add your comment
Share:
Covid recovery wealth tax

By Matthew Duncan

Matthew Duncan considers the implications of a proposed wealth tax to help fund significant shortfalls in the public purse

Mounting speculation about potential measures to address significant shortfalls in the UK public finances resulting from the covid-19 pandemic are being widely discussed and debated. A report published by the Wealth Tax Commission (WTC) in December 2020 considered the introduction of a UK wealth tax which, until now, hasn’t been seriously considered in the UK for nearly 50 years. 

The WTC was established in April 2020 to assess whether a wealth tax would benefit the UK in response to the exceptional economic circumstances of the pandemic.

Discussions around wealth tax are also taking place against a backdrop of other recent proposals to significantly reform capital taxes in the UK, notably, the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) reviews of both CGT and inheritance tax (see my article, Losses and gains, Solicitors Journal January 2021).

Financial backdrop

A UK wealth tax was first proposed immediately following the Second World War. It was also considered by the Harold Wilson government in the mid-1970s during the economic crisis of that administration. Neither proposal was implemented. 

The present-day government borrowed a record £34 billion in the month of December 2020 as the pandemic continued its devasting impact on our economy. The 2019 Conservative election manifesto promised not to increase VAT, income tax or national insurance and to maintain corporation tax at 19 per cent. 

With the Spring budget rapidly approaching (scheduled for 3 March 2021), the chancellor Rishi Sunak is in a difficult position. He must either break the election promises made or think of alternative ways of raising significant capital to fund the ever-increasing deficit. 

In July 2020, the chancellor stated: “I do not believe that now is the time, or ever would be the time, for a wealth tax.” However, since then the pandemic has continued to rage; the UK’s economic deficit has more than doubled; and borrowing continues to increase at alarming and unprecedented levels. 

Lord Gus O’Donnell, former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, stated in his foreword to the WTC report that “at a time when there appear to be no good options left, it is worth keeping an open mind about the choices that lie ahead”. 

WTC recommendations

The WTC recommended that if the government choses to raise taxes in response to covid-19, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending. A one-off wealth tax could raise substantial revenue and would be economically efficient.

The report recommended that in order to restrict the opportunity for tax avoidance, any one-off wealth tax should be implemented without prior warning and, perhaps, take effect retroactively. 

The WTC did not recommend an annual wealth tax because – unlike a one-off wealth tax – an annual wealth tax would require regular reassessments of wealth, with the tax due changing as wealth changed. Instead, it recommended that the government should reform existing taxes on wealth, advocating major structural reforms in preference to minor tinkering. 

Latest Articles

Mounting speculation about potential measures to address significant shortfalls in the UK public finances resulting from the covid-19 pandemic are being widely discussed and debated. A report published by the Wealth Tax Commission (WTC) in December 2020 considered the introduction of a UK wealth tax which, until now, hasn’t been seriously considered in the UK for nearly 50 years. 

The WTC was established in April 2020 to assess whether a wealth tax would benefit the UK in response to the exceptional economic circumstances of the pandemic.

Discussions around wealth tax are also taking place against a backdrop of other recent proposals to significantly reform capital taxes in the UK, notably, the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) reviews of both CGT and inheritance tax (see my article, Losses and gains, Solicitors Journal January 2021).

Financial backdrop

A UK wealth tax was first proposed immediately following the Second World War. It was also considered by the Harold Wilson government in the mid-1970s during the economic crisis of that administration. Neither proposal was implemented. 

The present-day government borrowed a record £34 billion in the month of December 2020 as the pandemic continued its devasting impact on our economy. The 2019 Conservative election manifesto promised not to increase VAT, income tax or national insurance and to maintain corporation tax at 19 per cent. 

With the Spring budget rapidly approaching (scheduled for 3 March 2021), the chancellor Rishi Sunak is in a difficult position. He must either break the election promises made or think of alternative ways of raising significant capital to fund the ever-increasing deficit. 

In July 2020, the chancellor stated: “I do not believe that now is the time, or ever would be the time, for a wealth tax.” However, since then the pandemic has continued to rage; the UK’s economic deficit has more than doubled; and borrowing continues to increase at alarming and unprecedented levels. 

Lord Gus O’Donnell, former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, stated in his foreword to the WTC report that “at a time when there appear to be no good options left, it is worth keeping an open mind about the choices that lie ahead”. 

WTC recommendations

The WTC recommended that if the government choses to raise taxes in response to covid-19, it should implement a one-off wealth tax in preference to increasing taxes on work or spending. A one-off wealth tax could raise substantial revenue and would be economically efficient.

The report recommended that in order to restrict the opportunity for tax avoidance, any one-off wealth tax should be implemented without prior warning and, perhaps, take effect retroactively. 

The WTC did not recommend an annual wealth tax because – unlike a one-off wealth tax – an annual wealth tax would require regular reassessments of wealth, with the tax due changing as wealth changed. Instead, it recommended that the government should reform existing taxes on wealth, advocating major structural reforms in preference to minor tinkering. 

The WTC suggests a wealth tax should be based on UK residency and the tax would be levied on worldwide assets of any individual UK resident, based on the existing statutory residence test rather than domicile. 

Assets subject to wealth tax

All worldwide assets owned by a UK resident individual would be subject to the wealth tax, which would include main residences, pensions, businesses and assets held in trust.

Specifically, in relation to trust assets, the report recommends that all trust assets should be subject to tax on a worldwide basis if the settlor is UK resident, regardless of whether the settlor is excluded under the terms of the trust deed.  

The trustees would primarily be liable for the tax charge, with the settlor having a secondary liability. 

The assets subject to the wealth tax would be valued at open market value based on a hypothetical transaction between a willing buyer and seller negotiating at arms’ length. 

The WTC makes clear in its report that it is not setting or recommending a specific rate or threshold for the tax levy, as it sees that as a decision for politicians. It does, however, give illustrative rates and provides an example based on a levy of 5 per cent on total wealth over £500,000 per individual. 

At this level, £260 billion would be raised for the exchequer. The suggestion would be for the tax to be paid over five years. The report points out that using this threshold, 16 per cent of UK adults would pay the tax charge. 

Analysis

The WTC report will inevitably fuel the debate as to how the UK tax system should be reformed to raise additional revenue given the current crisis. Wealth taxes in other jurisdictions have not been universally successful – Ireland, Germany and France have all abolished theirs. 

While there is undoubtedly wide public support for a wealth tax in principle, it is likely that those supporters are unlikely themselves to pay the tax.

However, if the threshold was introduced at a level of £500,000 per individual, which includes main homes and pensions, this would catch a significant number of people in the tax net who may not consider themselves to be especially wealthy. 

The valuation of assets would no doubt prove challenging, in particular in relation to assets which are hard to value, such as private company shares and businesses. 

What’s next?

The UK has a substantial and growing budget deficit. The WTC report provides a series of recommendations as to how that deficit could possibly be addressed. However, will the government be willing to introduce a wealth tax in any form, let alone one as dramatic as the WTC proposes?   

If not a wealth tax, what are the alternatives?  If the government wishes to raise significant revenue to reduce the deficit, it is likely it will have to break one or more of its election promises and raise VAT, income tax, national insurance or corporation tax. 

The government may also turn its attention to CGT. Reforms could include an increase in the rates of CGT and align the rate with income tax up to 45 per cent. The abolition of business asset disposal relief and the replacement of the base cost uplift on death could be introduced. 

The WTC report argues that reform of existing taxes would be a better route forward than an annual wealth tax. It also recommends both the alignment of CGT with income tax and the abolition of the CGT uplift on death. 

The government’s response to the report is now eagerly awaited, although there is nothing currently to indicate that a one-off charge of wealth tax is imminent.

That said, the report did recommend that if it were to be introduced, it should be done so without warning. But I anticipate that other taxes are more likely to change and those changes may become apparent on the 3d March when the chancellor delivers his budget.
 

Matthew Duncan is a partner at Druces druces.com

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions

The WTC suggests a wealth tax should be based on UK residency and the tax would be levied on worldwide assets of any individual UK resident, based on the existing statutory residence test rather than domicile. 

Assets subject to wealth tax

All worldwide assets owned by a UK resident individual would be subject to the wealth tax, which would include main residences, pensions, businesses and assets held in trust.

Specifically, in relation to trust assets, the report recommends that all trust assets should be subject to tax on a worldwide basis if the settlor is UK resident, regardless of whether the settlor is excluded under the terms of the trust deed.  

The trustees would primarily be liable for the tax charge, with the settlor having a secondary liability. 

The assets subject to the wealth tax would be valued at open market value based on a hypothetical transaction between a willing buyer and seller negotiating at arms’ length. 

The WTC makes clear in its report that it is not setting or recommending a specific rate or threshold for the tax levy, as it sees that as a decision for politicians. It does, however, give illustrative rates and provides an example based on a levy of 5 per cent on total wealth over £500,000 per individual. 

At this level, £260 billion would be raised for the exchequer. The suggestion would be for the tax to be paid over five years. The report points out that using this threshold, 16 per cent of UK adults would pay the tax charge. 

Analysis

The WTC report will inevitably fuel the debate as to how the UK tax system should be reformed to raise additional revenue given the current crisis. Wealth taxes in other jurisdictions have not been universally successful – Ireland, Germany and France have all abolished theirs. 

While there is undoubtedly wide public support for a wealth tax in principle, it is likely that those supporters are unlikely themselves to pay the tax.

However, if the threshold was introduced at a level of £500,000 per individual, which includes main homes and pensions, this would catch a significant number of people in the tax net who may not consider themselves to be especially wealthy. 

The valuation of assets would no doubt prove challenging, in particular in relation to assets which are hard to value, such as private company shares and businesses. 

What’s next?

The UK has a substantial and growing budget deficit. The WTC report provides a series of recommendations as to how that deficit could possibly be addressed. However, will the government be willing to introduce a wealth tax in any form, let alone one as dramatic as the WTC proposes?   

If not a wealth tax, what are the alternatives?  If the government wishes to raise significant revenue to reduce the deficit, it is likely it will have to break one or more of its election promises and raise VAT, income tax, national insurance or corporation tax. 

The government may also turn its attention to CGT. Reforms could include an increase in the rates of CGT and align the rate with income tax up to 45 per cent. The abolition of business asset disposal relief and the replacement of the base cost uplift on death could be introduced. 

The WTC report argues that reform of existing taxes would be a better route forward than an annual wealth tax. It also recommends both the alignment of CGT with income tax and the abolition of the CGT uplift on death. 

The government’s response to the report is now eagerly awaited, although there is nothing currently to indicate that a one-off charge of wealth tax is imminent.

That said, the report did recommend that if it were to be introduced, it should be done so without warning. But I anticipate that other taxes are more likely to change and those changes may become apparent on the 3d March when the chancellor delivers his budget.
 

Matthew Duncan is a partner at Druces druces.com

Related Topics

  • Financial Services & Tax
  • Private client
  • Technical legal practice

Comments

Can the SFO restore its credibility?
Solicitors Journal

Can the SFO restore its credibility?

Recent successes cannot obscure the operational failures continuing to undermine the Serious Fraud Office’s credibility in complex cases
Business31 Jul 2026
UN urges UK to end IPP sentences
Solicitors Journal

UN urges UK to end IPP sentences

The United Nations has deemed the UK government's IPP sentences arbitrary and called for immediate investigations into longstanding injustices
News31 Jul 2026
New evidence supports targeted diversion efforts
Solicitors Journal

New evidence supports targeted diversion efforts

The Youth Justice Board has published a report reinforcing the value of targeted prevention and diversion initiatives for reducing youth crime and promoting safer communities
News31 Jul 2026
High Court rectifies company register from scratch in Palmer v P1 Pit Stop dispute
Solicitors Journal

High Court rectifies company register from scratch in Palmer v P1 Pit Stop dispute

Court confirms power to create a members' register where none ever existed, resolving a five-year shareholder dispute.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
Upper Tribunal confirms corporate settlors can face secondary liability under Lexgreen Services v HMRC
Solicitors Journal

Upper Tribunal confirms corporate settlors can face secondary liability under Lexgreen Services v HMRC

Tribunal rules companies fall within section 201(1)(d) IHTA's "life of the settlor" wording.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
Court strikes out telecoms reseller's declaration-only claim in Yello v Onecom
Solicitors Journal

Court strikes out telecoms reseller's declaration-only claim in Yello v Onecom

Circuit Commercial Court finds two-stage litigation strategy over pricing dispute an abuse of process.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court rejects CMA's fixed ratio rule for mattress discount pricing in Emma Matratzen case
Solicitors Journal

High Court rejects CMA's fixed ratio rule for mattress discount pricing in Emma Matratzen case

Court declines to impose 1:2 sales ratio on online retailer's reference pricing despite admitted rule breaches.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court dismisses challenge to Northamptonshire warehouse scheme near protected bird site
Solicitors Journal

High Court dismisses challenge to Northamptonshire warehouse scheme near protected bird site

Judicial review over habitat mitigation for warehousing near Upper Nene SPA fails on all grounds.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court strips fraud insinuations from Home Office defences in Hossain v Home Office
Solicitors Journal

High Court strips fraud insinuations from Home Office defences in Hossain v Home Office

Judge rules on which pleaded passages breach earlier findings on TOEIC test fraud litigation.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court dismisses historic care home abuse claim in KHX v Isle of Wight Council
Solicitors Journal

High Court dismisses historic care home abuse claim in KHX v Isle of Wight Council

Court gives first ruling on new child sexual abuse limitation regime but rejects claimant's factual case.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
TCC refuses summary judgement in building safety remediation dispute Durkan v Wallace
Solicitors Journal

TCC refuses summary judgement in building safety remediation dispute Durkan v Wallace

Court finds repudiatory breach claim over cladding remediation too fact-sensitive for summary disposal.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court refuses permission for derivative claim in Gamett v Hughes dispute
Solicitors Journal

High Court refuses permission for derivative claim in Gamett v Hughes dispute

Court finds no director would pursue claim over ownership of German subsidiary built on decades-old oral deal.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
High Court dismisses £334,000 unjust enrichment claim in AG Retail v Andron
Solicitors Journal

High Court dismisses £334,000 unjust enrichment claim in AG Retail v Andron

Summary judgement granted after court finds shopping centre buyer's enrichment was not at contractor's expense.
Court Report31 Jul 2026
SJ Interview: Hannah Field
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Hannah Field

Hannah Field, head of Shoosmiths’ London office and its Dispute Resolution & Litigation team in London, speaks to Solicitors Journal about the firm’s growth strategy,...
Interview28 Jul 2026
Matters of judgement
Solicitors Journal

Matters of judgement

Foreword1 Jul 2026