Every so often, the tax conversation in the UK shifts. This is usually driven by the news headlines and because of the way politicians start talking about tax. And recently, Andy Burnham’s comments have done exactly that.
He’s been clear that day to day public services should be funded by tax revenue, but equally clear that he wants to stick to the manifesto commitment not to increase Income Tax, VAT or employee NICs.
When you hear those two statements side by side, it naturally prompts a bigger question: If the main tax revenues are off limits, where does the money come from? Who carries the burden?
The answer seems to be pointing towards capital or targeting wealth:
- Inheritance Tax
- Capital Gains Tax
- Structural reforms such as Land Value Tax
10% “Care Levy”
One of Burnham’s most talked about suggestions is the idea of a 10% levy on everyone’s assets, savings and homes to fund a National Care Service.
It’s being floated about in the news which makes it feel significant. It reframes IHT from a tax on transfers at death/gifts into something much broader – a potential mechanism for funding social infrastructure.
For clients with property, business assets or investment portfolios, this is a fundamental shift in how wealth might be taxed.
And it comes at a time when IHT is already moving:
- Pension pots entering the IHT net from 2027
- Restrictions on Business Property Relief (BPR) and Agricultural Property Relief APR)
- Case law in increased HMRC challenge on land based businesses
“looking again” at reliefs for farmers
Burnham also said he would “look again” at IHT reliefs for farmers. On the surface, that sounds very specific. However, whenever a politician questions APR, it inevitably raises questions about the less publicised BPR, because the two reliefs sit side by side in the IHT framework. If APR is under review, BPR is likely to be too.
For business owners, BPR is often the difference between:
- Passing a business down the generations intact, or
- Triggering a significant IHT charge on death and potentially funding this by selling parts of the business.
Land Value Tax (LVT)
Burnham has been an advocate of LVT – an annual charge based on the underlying value of land.
If this idea ever gains traction, it will reshape the tax landscape for:
- Land rich businesses
- Property holding companies
- Estates with significant land assets
This isn’t just a tax change. It’s a shift in how the UK views land ownership and wealth tied up in property – something which has always been favourable investment in the past.
Annual wealth tax: Is it a starter?
The government commissioned wealth report concluded that “an annual wealth tax is a non starter in the UK … However, a one-off wealth tax is a very different proposition. They think it would work and could raise one-quarter of a trillion pounds over five years.”
This is a striking conclusion and the fact that the conversation has been restarted makes you wonder, will this gain traction especially when other tax revenues are politically off‑limits.
Unintended consequences of taxing paper wealth and the Laffer curve
A shift toward taxing wealth also raises a broader question: much of that wealth is paper wealth, i.e. tied up in land, private businesses, or unrealised gains. Taxing these values may create unintended consequences.
- Liquidity pressure – individuals may be forced to sell land, shares or business interests simply to meet tax liabilities.
- Volatility exposure – tax bills can increase even when a business or farm is struggling, because valuations fluctuate independently of income and profits.
- Distorted investment behaviour – owners may avoid expansion or reinvestment if higher valuations trigger higher tax exposure.
- Administrative burden – annual valuations for land, private companies or complex assets add cost and compliance risk.
- Regional inequality – areas with higher land values, particularly the South East, face disproportionate tax pressure regardless of income levels.
These consequences also interact with a broader economic principle: the Laffer curve. Traditionally applied to income tax, it illustrates that beyond a certain point, higher tax rates can reduce overall tax revenue. When applied to wealth taxes especially those based on illiquid or volatile assets the risk of diminishing returns becomes more pronounced.
If tax policy targets valuations rather than income, several effects can shrink the tax revenue:
- Forced sales depress asset values, reducing future taxable wealth.
- Behavioural changes such as restructuring, relocation or offshore planning reduce the amount of wealth within the UK tax net.
- Reduced investment slows economic activity, indirectly reducing other tax revenue.
Taken together, these factors highlight a key pressure – the higher the tax burden on illiquid or volatile assets, the greater the risk that the tax base shrinks rather than grows. This is particularly relevant for farms, land rich estates and private companies where valuations do not necessarily reflect cashflow.
What does this mean for business owners and private wealth?
- A period of uncertainty
The uncertainty facing clients does not stem from what has been announced, but from what has not been announced. The government has signalled a willingness to revisit capital taxation, yet has provided no clear roadmap, timelines or scope. This lack of clarity is itself the risk: planning becomes harder, and assumptions that were previously safe now need to be revisited.
- Capital taxes as the primary target
With Income Tax, VAT and employee NICs politically protected, the logical target becomes taxes on wealth and capital. The direction of travel is already visible with:
- Higher CGT rates and reductions in the annual exempt allowance
- Restrictions to BPR
- IHT changes affecting pensions
- Increased scrutiny of land based businesses and property heavy structures
The question now being asked is whether CGT rates could be aligned with Income Tax rates.
- Estate planning requires active review
Advisers need to be proactively discussing estate planning with their clients. A potential care levy, tighter reliefs, increased HMRC challenge and the emerging risk of taxing paper wealth mean clients must revisit:
- Structures
- Timing of transfers
- Liquidity exposure
- Asset valuations
The combination of political signalling and suggestions of reform means passive planning is now a genuine risk.
- Trading vs Investment
For BPR, the trading vs investment distinction is sharper than ever. HMRC challenge is increasing, and borderline cases are becoming harder to defend. Businesses relying on BPR must ensure their trading status is genuine and can be clearly evidenced.
This includes reviewing business activities, keeping contemporaneous evidence to support your views, and ensuring investment type activities do not dominate the overall business.
Final thoughts
The direction of travel in UK tax policy is clear – the system is steadily shifting toward greater taxation of wealth. Not through a single dramatic reform, but through a series of incremental changes – tightening reliefs, adjusting thresholds, and testing public appetite for new approaches. For business owners and individuals with private wealth, this is a critical moment to ensure their affairs are in order. With further change being signalled, it is prudent to review your estate and obtain tailored advice so that planning remains robust, flexible and aligned with the evolving landscape.
Get in touch
Any questions, please call Reena Bhudia on 020 7874 8855 or email reena.bhudia@goodmanjones.com
The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.
However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.
If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.



ies won’t apply for those who fail to register in time, it has said that they will penalise deliberate or subsequent failures. The number of trusts registered to date is considerably lower than the anticipated total number implying that many lay trustees are unaware or have yet to register. Given many of these trusts have been set up by grandparents with a view to 

