This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

CT600 v Acounting periods

Jo76
Posts:1
Joined:Thu Jan 29, 2026 10:48 pm
CT600 v Acounting periods

Postby Jo76 » Thu Jan 29, 2026 11:21 pm

Hi, can someone please untangle this for me :

1)First accounting priod per CH : 30.01.2024 - 31.01.2025 - ( request for submission extension to 31.01.2026 - accepted) - accounts Submitted 29.1.2026. OK
2) Accounts for HMRC for the period 30.01.2024-31.01.2025 - submitted to HMRC at the same time as Filig pages - on 29.1.2026
2 ) Tax comutation and CT600 for the period :30.01.2024-29.01.2025 submitted to HMRC on 29.1.2026 . There is a loss/ so no CT to pay.

During completion, the apportionment was made for Sales/Turnover by HMRC software, so I also apportioned the COS ( small amounts, really, but still ), hoping that when I finish with the 12 months for CT600, I will be asked to prepare the CT600 for the remaining 2 days. But no, there is no facility /or request from HMRC to complete CT600 for the 2-day period.
Per HMRC, the next return period is from 1.2.2025 to 31.07.2025.
Per Companies House, the next accounts for the period to 31.01.2026 is due by 31.10.2026
There is no consistency at all.
What is the best approach, please regarding them 2 days for CT600? Shall i contat HMRC and check why there is no facility to submit the CT 600 for 2 days ( 30 and 31 Jan 2025) ? I got lost, sorry...

ArtifinAccountants
Posts:1
Joined:Thu Feb 12, 2026 3:17 pm

Re: CT600 v Acounting periods

Postby ArtifinAccountants » Thu Feb 12, 2026 3:34 pm

Hey, I know this can be tricky! So, Companies House looks at the whole thing, and you're all good there. But HMRC sees things a bit different for tax, so those extra 2 days go into the next tax period. Since you didn't make any money and don't owe any tax, you probably don't need another CT600. Just keep good records, and you should be set. By the way, if you want, we can help you stay on top of things!
info@artifinaccountants.co.uk

Lambs
Posts:1631
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: CT600 v Acounting periods

Postby Lambs » Thu Feb 12, 2026 5:50 pm

J,

When A says, "This can be tricky!", they are correct. Unfortunately, A's advice goes downhill rapidly from that point - certainly to my eyes, there are one or two points that are potentially very misleading, hence the decision to comment.

Simply, tax law has to fit around company law reporting. It seems you have filed at Companies House for a year and 2 days, which on the face of it is technically a "long period" from a tax perspective.

The standard approach would have been to make one submission for a long period, that would have been for 2 CT returns alongside one another, being for the first 12 months plus a 'stub' period of 2 days, being 30-31/01/2025.

This would have been due to be filed to HMRC by 31 January 2026, being 12months from the end of the relevant period of account (FA 1998 Sch 18 para 14(1)).

I am concerned that you reckoned/remarked to have made a loss in the stub 2-day period. Time-apportionment is standard (albeit capable of being over-ridden, as in Hus) so you could have made a loss in the overall period, but unlikely a profit for the first 12 months, then a loss for the balance of 2 days.

(Strictly, there are some adjustments, such as with Capital Allowances, that may complicate the final position and create a tax loss only in the stub, but the likelihood of an error seems at least comparable to the chance you made a significant eligible acquistion in the last 2 days of the long period, as one possible scenario).

Whether you made a profit or a loss, your company MUST FILE A RETURN FOR THE STUB. Simply, Corporation Tax returns are not optional. If you were chargeable by reason of carrying on a trade, then a return is MANDATORY. Practically, one assumes you would want to claim those losses that you say arose in the stub period? The only way HMRC will allow them is if you make a return. And those 2 days categorically do NOT just "go into the next tax period"! That is nonsense.

(This assumes a continuing trade, which I infer from the original post. HM Inspector can make accommodations for companies that have losses overall and cease to trade, with a view to closing a tax file, but that is relatively unusual).

While your question orients around the 2-day stub, I suggest you may have a bigger issue, being whether your first 'main' return is correct. This will very much depend on when the company's first CT-chargeable period actually BEGAN. Most off-the-shelf companies are 'dormant' until trade or similar chargeable activity commences. It is perfectly acceptable to roll this up into one set of accounts when reporting to Companies House (although I think there are presentation aspects in the accounts). But the commencement of trade will usually end the previous 'dormant' period and start a fresh chargeable/reportable period (CTA 2009 ss 9,10; CTA 2010 s 1167).

If we assume that the company actually commenced activity on (say) 1 March 2024, then your company's ONLY CT reporting period of relevance so far will be 01/03/2024 - 31/01/2025, which is strictly less than 12 months and perfectly acceptable to HMRC and its systems, without needing a stub.

(You could also have been 'saved' by the 7-day 'grace period' allowed in company reporting, but I doubt you would actually prefer it, as it would likely niggle in the end.)

I suggest that you seek the advice of a competent accountant/tax practitioner. At least one CT return appears now to be overdue, and likely to have incurred a penalty (with the risk of further penalties if left unfixed).

With regards,

Lambs


Return to “Business Tax”