MTD ITSA delayed for two years
The government has announced a further delay to the introduction of Making Tax Digital for Income Tax Self-Assessment (MTD ITSA). Why and what's the new timeframe?

In a statement released on 19 December, the government has finally acknowledged that MTD ITSA is a significant change for all concerned, and that launching during an economic crisis is not ideal. MTD ITSA will now be delayed until April 2026, with the self-employed and landlords with turnover in excess of £50,000 joining first. Those with income over £30,000 but not exceeding £50,000 will not need to join until April 2027. A start date for general partnerships has not yet been announced.
The government will now review the needs of smaller businesses before asking those earning less than £30,000 to join. Previously MTD ITSA was going to be mandatory for the self-employed/landlords earning over £10,000. Given the expected additional costs and administrative burden for small businesses this will undoubtedly be a very welcome change. However, HMRC will have its work cut out when operating different systems for self-assessment customers so further delays could be on the cards.
Note. This does not affect the move to tax year basis periods, which will be effective from 2024/25 after next year’s transition.
Related Topics
-
Was a company buyback of EIS shares tax avoidance?
Two taxpayers used the “purchase of own shares” procedure to extract gains they’d made from enterprise investment scheme (EIS) shares. HMRC said this was unfair tax avoidance, the taxpayers disagreed. What did the Upper Tribunal decide?
-
HMRC’s new compliance check service
HMRC has published a collection of videos and notes to help if you’re picked for a compliance check. Is HMRC’s new service worth a look or is it just official propaganda?
-
Income sharing trouble for separated couple
After a couple separated one spouse received income from letting the property she jointly owned with her estranged spouse. HMRC taxed all the income on her. Was it right to do so or should her spouse have been taxed on half the income?