The UK bank surcharge proposal changes burdens according to tax profits and allowances. Not yet law. Use the fictional ledger to test duplicated allowances and equal-tax conditions.
UK bank surcharge proposal: test the burden with tax profits and group allowances
The essentials in 30 seconds
- 01
Match the relevant profits and entities.
- 02
Do not duplicate a group allowance across companies.
- 03
Keep zero floors and reverse-calculate equal-tax conditions.
- 04
Lending pass-through depends on quantity, contracts and competition.
- 05
Use eight fields to map evidence and missing inputs.
Start with the profits the surcharge would tax
Read the proposal in Figure 1 against matching profit and allowance inputs. One headline earnings number cannot supply the comparison. The ledger lets readers identify the inputs they can support and the evidence still missing.
A bank’s headline earnings are often the first figures an investor sees. Entering them directly into a particular tax calculation can mix jurisdictions, legal entities and the treatment of losses. The question also matters to corporate borrowers: understanding how a lender might absorb a new cost begins with identifying the revenues and costs to which that cost actually belongs.
The comparison below follows a fictional banking group from tax-specific profit through the allowance allocated to each company and then to the chargeable base. Matching your own documents to those fields reveals usable inputs and missing ones. The tables are free to read and can be reproduced on paper or in your own spreadsheet. They do not fetch inputs or determine a bank’s tax liability.
Announcement, proposed application and cash payment have different dates
Figure 1 shows the announced rate window. The next legislative questions concern the actual wording, scope and transitional provisions. A clear policy window does not by itself determine the calculation for a company whose accounting period crosses its boundary. The right-hand endpoint is the announced end of the temporary measure, rather than a constraint preventing a future government from changing policy.
A company’s financial year need not match a policy window. Two banks reporting results in the same month may be describing different periods. Comparing a prior full-year profit with a subsequent quarter’s profit would distort a calculation of relative burdens. Recording the start and end of every input period makes the mismatch visible before any arithmetic is attempted.
The recognition of a tax expense in earnings can also differ from its cash-payment date. A higher income-statement expense does not establish an equal outflow of deposits or cash on the same day. A business assessing funding effects can keep separate profit and cash schedules, connecting each entry to the period and kind of tax information it represents.
Accounting profit is not a ready-made input
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), in its Banking Manual, starts the surcharge-profit calculation with taxable total profits and then specifies additions and deductions. These include additions for certain non-banking loss reliefs and deductions such as research and development expenditure credits. That definition explains why worldwide accounting profit before tax is not a substitute input.[S2]
In the examples, P denotes surcharge-specific profit before the allowance. It is not revenue, net interest margin or total cash flow. Giving it a distinct name helps prevent a different profit measure from slipping into the same cell. If an earnings report lacks the bridge connecting its profit measure to the surcharge calculation, the relevant field should remain blank.
The evidence task has two parts: extracting financial-statement numbers and establishing the tax adjustments connecting them to the required input. Public accounts may not support the second task in full. Plugging an unexplained difference into an ‘other’ row makes the spreadsheet appear complete while removing the explanation needed to compare burdens. Record who can substantiate an input and with which document, alongside the amount.
Figure 2 | Keep the calculation in order
Match P and Ai to the same company and period first.
- Surcharge-specific profit P
- Company allocation Ai
- Bi = max(P − Ai, 0)
- Charge = rate × Bi
SG Group simple model using P after tax-specific adjustments. It does not compute other taxes or an actual filing.
The allowance belongs to a group framework before it reaches a company
The current annual allowance has been £100 million since April 2023, within the framework for banking groups or standalone banking companies. Unused amounts cannot be carried forward, and other uses of the same allowance must be considered. It is not an automatic entitlement to an additional full allowance for every bank in a group.[S3]
For a group containing several banks, the amount available to each bank must follow the allocation mechanism.[S4] The worksheet calls the amount allocated to bank i ‘Ai’. A separate total checks that the allocations do not exceed the group’s available pool. Without that control, each individual calculation can look reasonable while the group as a whole uses too much allowance.
An allocation schedule is more informative than simply deducting one number from consolidated profit. Keep separate rows for banks A and B, with each profit matched to its allocated allowance. That makes revisions traceable to the affected company. An accounting business segment should not automatically be treated as a tax-defined banking company; the legal entities and their group relationship require supporting evidence.
One fictional ledger exposes a duplicated allowance
All numerical examples are fictional and use millions of pounds. Two banks cover the same twelve-month period: P is 60 for A and 60 for B, with an allocated allowance of 50 each. Assume no other use of the allowance and no change in group membership. These conditions isolate the calculation; they do not describe an actual bank’s liability or establish eligibility under future legislation.
Subtract Ai from P on each row, using zero if the result is negative. Call the resulting base Bi. The bases are 10 for A and 10 for B, or 20 in total. With model rates of 0.03 and 0.06, the combined charges are 0.6 and 1.2. Keeping the same currency and period throughout lets readers check every row without introducing another change through currency conversion.
If each bank incorrectly receives an allowance of 100, both bases become zero. Even with the right model rate, the new-rate result is understated by 1.2. The mistake is a duplicated allowance, not faulty multiplication. In a spreadsheet, a control row checking that the allocations total 100 will expose it before the individual tax calculations are reviewed.
Figure 3 | Check the allowance total
Entering 100 for each bank incorrectly erases a model charge of 1.2.
| Bank | P | Ai | Bi | Old charge | New charge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 60 | 50 | 10 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
| B | 60 | 50 | 10 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
| Total | 120 | 100 | 20 | 0.6 | 1.2 |
All figures fictional, £m, matching 12 months; rates 0.03/0.06, no competing use, stable membership and supported available allocations assumed.
A negative remainder is not a refund to another company
Change the fictional profits to 30 for A and 90 for B, leaving the allocations at 50 each. A’s remainder is minus 20, but its model chargeable base is zero. B’s base is 40, giving a total new-rate charge of 2.4. Collapsing the rows to 120 minus 100 would produce 1.2, which does not match the company-by-company result with these allocations.
This is an arithmetic warning, rather than a universal claim about consolidated tax calculations. A zero floor applied on each row cannot be replaced unconditionally with a subtraction after aggregation. Assuming A’s unused amount automatically becomes a cash credit reducing B’s charge introduces an additional premise that the original row calculation does not contain.
If the model instead permits allocations of 30 to A and 70 to B, the bases become zero and 20, restoring a total charge of 1.2. An allocation that minimises a toy result is not automatically available in practice. Procedures, available amounts and covered periods must support the actual allocation. The objective is to document a defensible allocation, not merely to find the smallest answer.
Figure 4 | Aggregation can erase company zero floors
The same aggregate profit does not make the two calculations equivalent.
Fictional fixed-allocation example, rate 0.06, zero baseline. The second operation is not a substitute under these allocations.
An allocated amount needs a supporting statement and period
HMRC describes a mechanism involving an allocation statement from the nominated company, distinguishing matching and different accounting periods.[S5] The person entering Ai should therefore record more than a number received verbally. Identifying the relevant statement and period allows another reader to trace the same conclusion.
A practical ledger needs six fields: legal entity, profit period, allocation-statement period, available amount, amount used and unused amount. If A’s profit runs from January to December but B’s allocation comes from an April-to-March statement, the mismatch needs explanation before aggregation. Similar-looking amounts do not make their periods interchangeable.
Acquisitions, mergers or departures can make a year-end organisation chart insufficient to establish relationships throughout a period. The fictional example holds membership constant and excludes those complications. If an actual case involves a structural change, add evidence rows and establish the applicable treatment separately. Dividing the year in two and automatically halving an allowance would be an unsupported shortcut.
A doubled rate does not make halved profit the equal-tax condition
In another fictional example, a single bank has an available allowance of 100 and old-period P of 500. The old charge is 0.03 times 400, or 12. To find the new P giving the same charge, divide 12 by 0.06 to obtain a base of 200, then add back the allowance of 100. The answer is 300: profit before the allowance need not halve.
P falls by 40%, from 500 to 300, while the base falls by 50%, from 400 to 200. The fixed allowance explains the difference. If P instead halves to 250, the remaining base is 150 and the new-rate charge is 9, below the old charge of 12. Using ‘halved profit’ as an intuitive rule overshoots the equal-tax point.
This reverse calculation remains useful after the headline is understood. For the bank being examined, can the reader establish consistently defined P and available allowances for both periods? If not, the next task is to find that tax-profit bridge, rather than announce a required percentage decline. The exercise does not forecast actual earnings deterioration or share prices from the rate change.
Figure 5 | New profit 300 returns the charge to 12
Against old profit 500, it is the post-allowance base that halves.
0100300500
Horizontal: P (£m) · vertical: charge (£m)
Fictional model: allowance 100, old rate 0.03, new rate 0.06. Horizontal axis P; vertical axis charge; both £m. Neither observations nor forecasts.
Changing the allowance changes the threshold
When both bases are positive, equal charges require Pnew = Anew + (rold/rnew) × (Pold − Aold). The new pre-allowance profit equals its new allowance plus the rate ratio applied to the old base. Even unchanged rates can produce a different threshold when available allowances change. The plotted line is this model relationship, not a forecast of bank earnings.
With old profit of 500, an old allowance of 100, a new allowance of 80 and the same model rates, equal tax occurs at new profit of 280. Reducing the new allowance by 20 lowers the equal-tax profit point by 20. Equal tax can therefore coexist with a lower profit level when less relief is available. An unchanged tax charge alone does not establish unchanged profitability.
Using the formula with actual documents requires both Aold and Anew. Substituting a headline current allowance for either can erase changes in allocation or competing uses. Keep the group’s total pool in a different field from the amount available to one bank. Establishing what each variable covers matters more to a reliable comparison than shortening the formula.
At the zero floor, equal tax need not identify one profit level
If profit does not exceed the available allowance, the simple model gives a zero charge. With old profit of 80 and an old allowance of 100, old tax is zero. If the new allowance is also 100, new profits of either 80 or 90 likewise give zero. The positive-base formula cannot identify a unique equal-tax profit point in that region.
Above the allowance, the rate applies to the excess. Raising model new profit from 100 to 110 increases the charge from zero to 0.6, rather than to 6.6 on the entire 110. Here the allowance is an amount used to determine the base, not a percentage exemption or a cash transfer to the bank.
The graph has a flat zero region and a rising region above the allowance. The same rate change therefore produces different modelled tax charges for a large positive base and a bank near the threshold. Assigning an actual bank to either region requires supported tax inputs and allocations, rather than the size of its headline accounting profit.
Do not combine the surcharge and Bank Levy under one rate change
HMRC’s statistical background distinguishes the profit-based surcharge from the Bank Levy, whose base concerns chargeable equity and liabilities. Ordinary Corporation Tax is another charge. The background was published on 1 October and describes the system before this Budget proposal.[S6] Similar tax names do not establish a common base to which one rate can be applied.
Doubling a bank’s total reported tax would include charges outside the proposed change. Calling the surcharge increase the change in total tax would omit other charges and changing profits. A burden schedule should separate tax type, base, legal entity, period, and expense versus cash payment. Those five fields reveal the checks required before adding amounts together.
Net interest income is also a different stage from profit before tax. Applying a surcharge rate before staff costs, credit losses and other revenues or expenses cannot produce a tax liability. Examine HSBC interest income and reinvestment timing helps examine investment and deposit-rate effects, but its net-interest-income calculations should not be fed directly into a tax model without the intervening profit adjustments.
Overlay rate windows and annual allowances
Begin a crossing-period case with two timelines: the policy window and each company’s accounting periods. A mismatch between policy and accounting periods does not justify scaling the annual allowance independently. Nor does it establish four equal quarterly allowances. The applicable rules and company circumstances determine the calculation unit, rather than the layout most convenient for a spreadsheet.
Future legislation needs to settle the treatment of crossing periods, the associated allowance and whether only the rate changes. A historical worked example in a current manual is not a ready-made calculation for this proposal. Its amounts and day counts belong to its own amendment. Older figures must be read alongside the manual’s later update to the allowance.[S4]
Readers can map where a bank’s periods cross the policy boundaries without inventing transitional rules. Keep a matched-period model separate from a crossing-period actual case. That shows which answers follow from simple arithmetic and which require additional rules, reducing the temptation to estimate a charge covering a different period directly from one annual profit figure.
Separate the rate effect from the changing base
For the single-bank model, new P of 400 and an allowance of 100 give a new charge of 18, up 6 from the old 12. Holding the old base of 400 fixed while changing only the rate first increases the charge by 12. The subsequent decline in the base to 300 offsets 6. This sequence reproduces the net increase through separate rate and base effects.
State that the decomposition changes the rate first. Changing the base first would assign different amounts to the two contributions, although the final difference would be identical. Calling one contribution the pure rate effect without stating the method hides the interaction between rate and base changes. Whichever order is chosen, check that the components connect the same starting and ending totals.
Actual comparisons can also involve changing allowance use, entity coverage or accounting periods. Forcing every difference into just two components would misattribute those other changes to profit. Give perimeter changes their own rows and leave unexplained differences explicit. The purpose is to explain a higher burden without assigning every movement to the headline rate.
Figure 6 | From old charge 12 to new charge 18
A base decline offsets 6 of the rate-only increase 12.
| Step | Calculation | Charge / change £m |
|---|---|---|
| Old period | 0.03×400 | 12 |
| Rate first | (0.06−0.03)×400 | +12 |
| Then change base | 0.06×(300−400) | −6 |
| New period | 0.06×300 | 18 |
Fictional; allowance 100, P 500→400. Rate-first decomposition; 12+12−6=18.
The tax calculation does not settle who bears the cost
If a bank incurs an extra cost, the economic effect depends on its response in distributions, retained earnings, customer rates and fees. A bank wanting to pass the cost through cannot assume competitors will do the same. Repricing dates and the customer’s ability to switch funding providers also influence how the burden is distributed.
Raising the price of new lending differs from immediately repricing existing fixed-rate contracts. Dividing an extra cost by all loans produces an arithmetic average, but says nothing about which contracts can carry that price. Combining corporate facilities, mortgages and fee-generating business under one balance can conceal the scope actually available for repricing.
Households and businesses should examine the terms actually offered to them, rather than infer a loan rate from a tax headline. Compare renewal dates, reference rates, margins, fees and repricing rights. Trace how rates reach borrowers and depositors provides background on the transmission of rates; the practical comparison then uses offers on matching terms. It need not assume lending rates rise by an amount mechanically derived from the extra tax.
Even a fictional lending pass-through needs the right denominator
Suppose a separate fictional new-loan book of 100 generates pretax additional revenue equal to the two-bank ledger’s model charge increase of 0.6. The simple ratio over one year is 0.6%; with an eligible book of 200, it is 0.3%. This matches a revenue amount to a repricable exposure, rather than predicting a bank’s prices.
The illustration assumes a constant balance for a full year, no tax feedback on the additional income, and no change in other costs or defaults. Loans originated partway through a year require a different exposure period. Fee recovery likewise needs the number and timing of chargeable transactions. If borrowers leave, the denominator changes and the intended increase may fail to recover the amount planned.
The practical lesson is that a pass-through calculation needs both a repricable quantity and time. Assigning an industry-wide cost to one bank’s loan balance mixes perimeters. Where some banks absorb costs and others reprice, an average cannot determine a customer’s offer. Renewed quotations and customer movements provide the evidence for what actually changes.
Figure 7 | Conditional routes from a charge to customers
Loan-price pass-through needs quantities, contracts and competition.
- Extra charge
- Adjust distributions
- Absorb in retention
- Extra charge
- Repricable contracts
- Price change / customer switching
- Extra charge
- Capital / return constraints
- Review credit terms
SG Group conditional transmission map. Arrows identify pathways to test, not probabilities, magnitudes or observed bank behaviour.
Retained earnings and lending capacity are connected conditionally
Lower after-tax earnings leave less to retain if everything else is unchanged. Yet a bank can alter dividends or buybacks, generate other income or change its assets. Lending therefore need not fall immediately by the same amount. An assessment of capital headroom should match the tax change with earnings and distribution plans over the same period.
Capital-regulation measures serve different purposes and cover different quantities from tax profit. The relative assessment discussed in Examine relative bank scores and intermediation cannot be substituted for a surcharge base. Nor does a small surcharge base establish ample regulatory headroom. Connecting the schedules requires an explanation of how after-tax earnings feed into the relevant capital measure.
For borrowers, the relevant response may extend beyond interest rates to tenor, collateral, covenants or facility size. Available funding could shrink even if one quoted price stays unchanged, potentially affecting investment. Actual changes in terms or a lender’s explanation of credit policy would support that pathway. The tax headline alone cannot establish that it has occurred.
Cross-border comparisons need the taxable perimeter
A group’s headquarters location is insufficient to measure its exposure to a UK surcharge. The calculation needs the relevant operating entities and profits. Assuming a foreign-headquartered group has no UK exposure, or applying the rate to all worldwide profits of a UK-headquartered group, skips the same essential perimeter question.
Competitive effects are easier to examine through comparable customer offers than through the nationality of a company name. Similar lenders can differ in income mix, allowance use and the share of contracts available for repricing. A comparison of evidence and offers on matching currencies, periods and terms is more useful than a simple ranking by country.
These differences provide a potential route into the wider economy. Changing funding availability or returns could lead companies to reconsider bank loans, bonds or internal funds. Substitution costs and accessible scale differ across borrowers, however. A claim that international capital must move uniformly in one direction would need evidence from actual transactions and funding terms.
Equity and debt investors ask different questions of the same charge
An equity investor needs after-tax earnings, distribution policy and reinvestment returns. A debt investor also examines cash available for interest and principal, maturities and restrictions on moving funds. The same extra surcharge does not mechanically reduce both securities’ values by an identical percentage. The claim held determines which supporting documents matter.
Interpreting a share-price response also requires the prior expectation. A policy raising tax can coexist with a price increase if the burden is smaller than anticipated. Conversely, attributing a fall entirely to tax requires examining simultaneous changes in rates, credit risk and earnings expectations. A single day’s price and volume cannot settle causation.
Currency effects likewise cannot be inferred from banks’ after-tax earnings alone. Other pathways concern household spending, fiscal conditions and interest-rate expectations. Examine expectations and exchange rates provides background on expectation differences and exchange rates, but the fictional tax ledger should not be converted directly into an exchange-rate forecast. It establishes conditions for comparing burdens, not a unique asset-price outcome.
Test the argument that a temporary charge is easier to absorb
There is a reasonable argument that a temporary charge has a limited effect on long-term plans. A bank might absorb a finite cost through current earnings or distribution adjustments. Yet a short window can still matter for a bank with thin earnings or concentrated funding needs. Duration alone does not make the effect identical across institutions.
Testing that argument needs more than one annual profit number. Matching earnings, planned distributions, cash payments and maturities across the affected periods exposes the assumed buffer. A claim of permanently lower earnings after expiry would also need a persistent change in contracts or customers. The endpoint alone establishes neither an optimistic nor a pessimistic outcome.
A second argument is that higher earnings can absorb the cost. That remains possible, but the kind of profit growth can itself change the surcharge base. Counting every extra pre-tax pound as fully available to cover extra tax is circular. The assessment needs the cost of generating the revenue and its route into tax-specific profit.
Match your evidence to eight fields
The worksheet has eight fields: entity, profit period, adjustments to P, available group pool, company allocation, non-negative base, applicable rate window, and evidence separating expense from cash payment. Copy supported entries from your documents and check that one field has not been substituted for another. An empty field should not be filled with worldwide profit just to complete the calculation.
Inputs may appear in public tax notes or internal material the reader is authorised to use. There is no need to send confidential information to the site; the comparison can be made on paper or in a local spreadsheet. The static table does not save entries or automatically establish legal eligibility. Tax judgments require the responsible person to verify the applicable rules and evidence.
The useful result may be the name of a missing document rather than a tax amount: a profit bridge without an allocation statement, or matching periods without evidence of availability. Identifying the gap narrows the next question and its owner. After a summary explains the policy direction, readers can return to test this input mapping and locate what remains unresolved.
Figure 8 | Eight-field evidence worksheet
Identify missing evidence instead of substituting another profit measure.
| Field | Record | If unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Entity | Legal company and group | Identify perimeter |
| 2 Period | Profit-period boundaries | Match dates |
| 3 Profit | Bridge to P | Find adjustments |
| 4 Pool | Available group amount | Check competing use |
| 5 Allocation | Each Ai and total | Find allocation statement |
| 6 Base | Each max(P−Ai,0) | Check rows |
| 7 Rate | Applicable window and rules | Check transitions |
| 8 Cash | Expense/payment bridge | Match timing |
Static worksheet for your own paper or spreadsheet. No saved inputs, uploads or automated tax-eligibility determination.
Choose evidence that would change the assessment
An absorption-through-retention view gains support from substantiated profit and allocation inputs together with a remaining buffer after distributions and capital plans. Evidence of tighter funding alongside changed lending terms or assets would challenge it. Calling a bank strong or weak does not identify which condition moved; the assessment needs specific evidence capable of changing it.
A pass-through view requires a repricable contract perimeter and the terms offered when those contracts renew. If quotations change mainly because of market rates or credit quality, the tax explanation weakens. Matching borrowers and loan tenors provides a way to test that link. Not every observed outcome should be counted automatically as evidence of tax pass-through.
A switching-to-competitors view needs evidence of new-business migration or alternative funding terms. A lower bank margin alone does not demonstrate switching, while an unchanged industry loan total can conceal changes between lenders. Separate the industry, bank and customer levels so that one observation is not forced into a conclusion at a different scale.
Next evidence: legislation and bank-specific profit bridges
On the policy side, the next evidence is the Finance Bill text and subsequent material on enactment and application. Boundaries, scope and transition rules matter when moving from the simple model to practice. Additional reporting dated the same day as the announcement is not evidence of enactment. A later procedural step should be connected to the specific assumption it changes.
For banks, the key evidence concerns surcharge-profit adjustments, allowance use, covered entities and accounting periods. If only a tax forecast is disclosed, establish whether it is an expense or cash payment and which profits it covers. An apparent inconsistency with total earnings or net interest income may reflect different calculation scopes. The connecting explanation is what makes the comparison assessable.
For markets, compare changed contract terms and competitor behaviour over matching periods. Comparable loan quotations and explanations of capital or distributions can sometimes test the scenarios more directly than daily share-price movements. Follow the sequence from the tax rate to bank burden to customer cost, marking where evidence is missing along the route.
SG Group View: a reproducible burden schedule matters more than one rate
The proposal is an important policy choice connecting receipts from the UK banking sector with the allocation of private earnings. At bank level, however, matching tax profit and company allocations can matter more than the rate multiple. The two-bank example reached zero merely by duplicating an allowance despite using the intended model rate. That is why the sequence must remain visible.
Two separate checks move the discussion forward. First, can the burden be reproduced using matching profits, allowances and periods? Second, does the proposed distribution of that burden have support in contracts, capital decisions or customer behaviour? Completing the first does not settle the second, and a plausible story about the second cannot fill missing inputs in the first.
The practical result is a method for identifying the numbers and documents needed for comparison, rather than a purported actual bank tax bill. Keep halving the post-allowance base distinct from halving pre-allowance profit, and check the allocations across companies. Once enacted rules and bank disclosures supply the relevant evidence, the same schedule can be used to revise the assessment.
Questions and answers
Can total profits of two banks determine the group’s charge?
Removing company allocations and row-level zero floors can change the result. Compare the example of profits 30/90 with allocations 50/50 against aggregation first. Any actual use of losses requires separate verification of the applicable rules.
Does halving old profit offset a doubled rate?
With a fixed allowance, it is the post-allowance base that must halve. Old profit 500 and allowance 100 give equal tax at new profit 300. Profit 250 produces a still lower charge.
Where is the equal-tax point below the allowance?
The simple model has a range of profits yielding zero tax, so there need not be one point. Do not extend the positive-base reverse formula into that range.
What is needed to compare different allowances?
Establish the available amount for each period separately, matching the entity and profit definition. Do not copy one headline amount into both fields; retain evidence of allocation and use.
What if public accounts lack the required profit input?
Do not substitute worldwide profit before tax or net interest income. Record the missing tax-profit bridge or allocation evidence so that the next question is specific.
Does a larger charge imply the same increase in borrowing rates?
Loan quantity, exposure period, repricable contracts and competition all matter. The pass-through example fixes assumptions for fictional arithmetic; it is not a forecast of a bank’s prices.
Does the worksheet require confidential uploads?
No input or upload is required. Reproduce the table on paper or in your own spreadsheet, use only material you are authorised to consult, and refer tax judgments to the responsible person.
Can the worksheet determine a bank-stock trade?
It checks conditions for comparing a burden. It does not jointly value price, future earnings and investors’ prior expectations. Each requires separate evidence before an investment decision.
Related reading
Sources
- S1 · UK government, Budget 2026 tax overview (OOTLAR) §1.37 (28 October)
- S2 · HMRC Banking Manual BKM 403100: surcharge profits (updated 2026-02-09)
- S3 · HMRC BKM 404100: allowance (updated 2026-02-09)
- S4 · HMRC BKM 404300: multiple-bank groups (updated 2026-02-09)
- S5 · HMRC BKM 404500: allocation statement (updated 2026-02-09)
- S6 · HMRC banking-sector tax statistics background (2026-10-01)
- S7 · UK government, Budget 2026 §7.22 (28 October)
Notes and update history
Numerical examples are fictional same-period models, not actual bank liabilities or forecasts. No filing, eligibility or transitional treatment is determined. This analysis is not tax advice or an investment recommendation.
2026-10-29 JST: First publication.