Subscribe to our newsletter to receive business tips, learn about new funding programmes, join upcoming events, take e-learning courses, and more.
Take the first step to successfully starting and growing your business.
Join for free)
Posted: Wed 29th Apr 2026
This blog was originally published on Sage's website.
Under MTD for Income Tax, the work doesn't come from the submission. It comes from your client.
If you've already started rethinking your pricing under MTD, this is the next layer – understanding what actually drives the work behind it.
Before MTD, work was tied to a moment. Prepare. File. Close. Once the return was submitted, the engagement largely paused.
MTD changes that rhythm, and with it, the economics of your practice. Quarterly filings are visible, but the oversight behind them isn't.
From the outside, MTD can appear like four submissions and a button press. From the inside, it's a continuous cycle of review, correction, chasing, and risk management.
The client sees a confirmation screen, but you carry the consequences if something is wrong behind it.
That gap, between what clients see and what you carry, is where pricing can break.
Work that accumulates under MTD for Income Tax won't arrive as a single, identifiable task. It'll arrive as a mid-quarter cleanup that wasn't billed.
Records that needed chasing before submission. Data that is technically complete but not commercially usable.
Individually, these feel like admin. Collectively, they can erode your margin.
Hannah Miller, director of Chipperfield Accounting, described exactly this kind of compounding at in February 2026.
Her firm offered spreadsheets as an alternative workflow, and more clients accepted than anticipated, multiplying review paths and fragmenting process across the portfolio.
Optionality feels client-friendly. But operationally, it can create volatility.
Rebecca Benneyworth, tax consultant and MTD Working Group member since 2016, outlined another practical cost plainly at the same event: bridging submissions take considerably longer because every box must be relayed manually.
That time doesn't disappear. If it isn't priced, it erodes margin.
The real risk under MTD is unpredictability. If your most straightforward and most demanding clients pay the same fee, your pricing model is working against you.
Most firms don't see this clearly until the extra work has already been absorbed. Two clients paying the same fee can create completely different workloads.
A sole trader with modest income but chaotic records can consume more oversight time than a larger business with clean, timely data.
Turnover used to signal complexity. Under MTD, behaviour does.
Benneyworth was direct at MTD Live about what software adoption can look like without proper supervision, records that were manageable on paper can become harder to work with once clients are on software unsupervised:
transactions duplicated
receipts and payments both posted
personal and business finances mixed
The behavioural overhead doesn't shrink just because the tool changes.
A more useful lens has two dimensions: the cleanliness of the records when they reach you and your client's ability with their software.
Plot clients across those axes, and the variation in effort becomes visible and priceable.
Repricing for MTD doesn't require anything complex. Simply clarify what you're doing.
Start with a base compliance layer, quarterly updates and the annual return, that every client pays.
Everything above that should reflect behaviour: how clean the data is, how self-sufficient the client is, and how much risk you carry between filings.
Nikhil Sangani, chartered accountant at Sage & Co (an independent accounting firm, not affiliated with Sage), framed the principle simply at MTD Live: same process as last year, same price; correcting incorrect entries, probably more expensive.
That's not a complex methodology. It's a direct link between behaviour and scope.
Miller takes it further, tying monthly billing to a behavioural condition: data delivered within 14 days of quarter end as a condition of the fee structure.
That makes the arrangement a two-way commitment rather than a unilateral charge, and gives your firm a documented basis for scope conversations if the terms aren't met.
Once you can see how behaviour drives the work, the next step is turning that into something you can apply consistently.
Repricing friction usually comes from framing.
If you simply describe MTD as four extra submissions, clients anchor on admin. If you describe it as ongoing oversight and responsibility, you force the conversation to change.
The most effective approach is to treat the repricing discussion like a discovery call, understand how the client wants to work under MTD, how confident they are in keeping records current, and whether they want ongoing support between quarters.
Listen first, then give your recommendation. When clients feel heard, you can help a fee change land as a tailored solution rather than an arbitrary increase.
Whatever you agree on, formalise it. If your engagement letters still describe a static annual service, they won't reflect the ongoing relationship MTD for Income Tax demands.
Document what oversight includes, what triggers a scope change, and what sits outside the engagement.
It's easier to hold a pricing boundary when your client has agreed to it in writing.
Pricing under MTD isn't only a commercial decision. It's a signal about how you value your own expertise. Price the responsibility and protect your relationship with the client.
If your pricing needs to reflect client behaviour, the next step is to assess where that behaviour is already creating hidden work across your firm.
Get tailored recommendations, join virtual workshops, connect with expert advisers and find practical resources. Take me to Tech Hub now
