Procedure – SDLT – earlier interlocutory decision – application for own appeals to be struck out on basis that no reasonable prospect of success and/or abuse of process – application for Tribunal to exercise discretion under Rule 5 to bring proceedings to an end – applications refused.

[2020] UKFTT 274 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.652720

The Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, section 168, enacts-‘All bonds, assignations, conveyances, instruments, agreements, receipts, or other writings made or granted by or to or in favour of the local authority under this Act shall be exempt from stamp duties.
The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, section 57 (1), enacts-‘Land for the purposes of this part of this Act may be acquired by a local authority in like manner as if these purposes were purposes of the Public Health Act. . . ‘
Held that the exemption from stamp duty applied only where the local authority was acting under the Public Health Act, and not where acting under the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 or the Housing, Town Planning, and co., Act 1909.

Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Parmoor
[1918] UKHL 504, 55 SLR 504
Bailii
Scotland

Stamp Duty

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.631476

Stamp Duty : Land Tax – discovery assessment – avoidance scheme – whether assessment invalid because not served on appellant until after time limit – whether discovery stale – whether discovery met conditions in paragraphs 28 and 30 Schedule 10 FA 2003 – appeal dismissed.

[2019] UKFTT 3 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.632484

The company had purchased the site of the former Chelsea barracks. It was in turn owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, which financed the purchase by a Sharia compliant loan scheme, which was implemented creating a lease and buy back arrangement. The company now appealed against a finding that it was liable to stamp duty on the full purchase value.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded: ‘the only disposals and acquisitions of chargeable interests were the transfer of the freehold of the site to MAR and the grant of the lease to PBL. As explained earlier, the transfer to PBL from the MoD is disregarded. Since MAR acquired a chargeable interest from the MoD by virtue of the operation of s.45(3) and (on the basis that s.71A applies to exempt the purchase) the s.75A(1)(c) condition is satisfied even taking into account the subsequent lease to PBL as a scheme transaction, then I can see nothing in s.75A which excludes the application of s.75A(5) to the acquisition of the freehold at a price of andpound;1.25bn. The lease to PBL is therefore disregarded under s.75A(4).’

Patten, Lewison, Underhill LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 485, [2016] BTC 22, [2016] STC 2168, [2017] 2 All ER 549, [2018] 1 WLR 368, [2016] STI 1795
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 42(1) 43 48 75
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v DV3 RS Ltd Partnership CA 25-Jul-2013
The company appealed against a finding that its stamp duty land tax saving scheme was ineffective. The court was now asked whether a sale on by a company to a newly formed partnership comprising itself and four other partners of a lease which the . .
At FTTTx – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 5-Jul-2013
FTTTx STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – sale of property with subsequent Shari’a – compliant sub-sale and lease-back – no SDLT paid pursuant to sections 45(3) and 71A Finance Act 2003- application of section 75A Finance Act . .
At UTTC – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs UTTC 18-Dec-2014
Stamp Duty Land Tax – Sale and sub-sale of large development site – Application of Finance Act 2003, section 45(3), in the form current in 2007 and 2008 – Sub-sale to financial institution – Interpretation and application of Finance Act 2003, . .

Cited by:
Appeal From (CA) – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.564720

FTTTx Stamp Duty Land Tax – Penalty for late delivery of Land Transaction Return – Finance Act 2003 Section 76(1) – no reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 1002 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 76(1)
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.539011

FTTTx SDLT – subsale – acquisition by partnership – effect of section 45 and 44 on para 10 Sch 15 FA 2003

[2011] UKFTT 138 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.442858

Effective Date of Transfer

SDLT – contract and conveyance – effective date of land transaction – contract provided for purchaser to grant an annuity – annuity held on trust for purchaser pending completion of contract – was contract substantially performed before completion? – annuity redeemed between contract and completion – what was consideration for the conveyance? – application of anti-avoidance provisions – discovery assessment – was discovery assessment ‘stale’? – could HMRC have been reasonably expected to have been aware of insufficiency of tax? – penalty notice – was the inaccuracy in the return deliberate? – Finance Act 2003, ss 44, 52, 75A, sch 4 para 1, sch 10 para 30, Finance Act 2007, sch 24 paras 1, 3

[2021] UKUT 22 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.658109

Qualifying Property Rental – Stamp Duty Relief

SDLT – higher threshold interest 15% rate – relief for a qualifying property rental business – intention that a non-qualifying individual be permitted to occupy a dwelling on the land (paragraph 5(2), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – whether a non-qualifying individual was permitted to occupy the dwelling during the control period (paragraphs 5G(2) and 5G(3)(c), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – meaning of ‘occupation’ – Abbey National v Cann considered – representative occupation for legitimate business purposes – purchase from a connected LLP – sum of the lower proportions calculation (paragraphs 18 and 20, Schedule 15, FA 2003) – identity of the relevant owners – ‘control’ (s.1122 CTA 2010) – attribution of control to associates (s.451(5)(b) CTA 2010) – R v CIR ex p Newfields Developments Limited and Gascoines Group Ltd v HMRC considered – appeal dismissed

Austen HHJ
[2020] UKFTT 404 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Cited – Principal and Fellows of Newnham College In the University of Cambridge v Revenue and Customs HL 16-Apr-2008
A new library had been built for the college. A company owned by the college took a lease of it from the college, and reclaimed the input tax paid on construction. The company managed the library.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal failed. The . .
Cited – Henkes v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Application for Final and Partial Closure Notices) FTTTx 20-Mar-2020
PROCEDURE – application for final and partial closure notices – appeal against an information notice – whether the First-tier Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine (and, if so, should determine) the Appellant’s domicile as a preliminary issue . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Newfields Developments Ltd HL 21-Jun-2001
Tax relief for smaller companies was to be reduced where a person controlling the company was associated with other companies. The taxpayer was found to be in control of two companies by virtue of her associations with two trusts with control of two . .
Cited – Gascoines Group Limited, Newark Cattle Market Company Limited, Saracens Securities Limited v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 30-Mar-2004
Small companies relief – associated companies
Lightman J said: ‘As is apparent from its terms associated companies are defined in section 13(4) of the 1988 Act as companies of which one company controls or is controlled by another or which are . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.655357

Property Bought By International Company)

Stamp Duty Land Tax – property bought by international company – solicitor calculated tax at 7% rate – HMRC opened enquiry – property occupied by non-qualifying individuals- solicitors eventually accepted 15% rate was correct – HMRC raised penalty for carelessness – solicitor’s instructions not produced – unsatisfactory evidence of company being asked/checked about who would occupy property – appeal against penalty dismissed.

[2021] UKFTT 116 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.663690

UTTC STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – failure to render return – whether taxpayer had a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.

Colin Bishopp Judge
[2012] UKUT 10 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.452887

FTTTx STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – sale of property with subsequent Shari’a – compliant sub-sale and lease-back – no SDLT paid pursuant to sections 45(3) and 71A Finance Act 2003- application of section 75A Finance Act 2003- anti-avoidance provision – approach to interpretation of section 75A – identification of ‘V’ and ‘P’ within section 75A(1) Finance Act 2003-‘scheme transactions’- meaning of ‘involved in connection with’- calculation of SDLT under section 75A(5)- whether indirect discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights -HMRC arguing that tax undercharged in amendment by closure notice to SDLT return: onus of proof – paragraph 42 Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 – whether correct return amended- appeal dismissed- SDLT undercharged in amendment to return

Guy Brannan J
[2013] UKFTT 378 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTx – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs UTTC 18-Dec-2014
Stamp Duty Land Tax – Sale and sub-sale of large development site – Application of Finance Act 2003, section 45(3), in the form current in 2007 and 2008 – Sub-sale to financial institution – Interpretation and application of Finance Act 2003, . .
At FTTTx – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2016
The company had purchased the site of the former Chelsea barracks. It was in turn owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, which financed the purchase by a Sharia compliant loan scheme, which was implemented creating a lease and buy back . .
At FTTTx – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.513514

FTTTx Stamp Duty Land Tax – Penalty – failure to deliver land transaction return on time – reliance on solicitor – whether reasonable excuse on facts – yes – appeal allowed – section 97 Finance Act 2003.

[2010] UKFTT 496 (TC), [2011] SFTD 67, [2011] STI 311
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 97
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.426608

The taxpayer company had entered into two contracts on the same day. The contracts involved a taxpayer buying a freehold property from developers coupled with a separate development agreement under which the developers would complete construction work already started on the freehold property. HMRC assessed the taxpayer company to stamp duty by reference to the total amount of consideration payable for the sale of land and all the building works.
Held: The transaction entered into by the taxpayer could not be characterised as a sale of land with finished buildings thereon. That was not the legal shape of the transaction. The sale agreement was completed independently of the development agreement. Stamp duty was payable on the consideration for the sale agreement alone.
Sir Donald Nicholls V-C considered how to interpret the documents to see their taxation effect: ‘I must therefore identify what was the subject matter of the sale. In so doing I must have regard to the commercial substance of the transaction. I must also have regard to the shape, or form, which the parties have chosen for their transaction. A given commercial result can often be reached by more than one route. If the parties have genuinely chosen one route, with the legal incidents and consequences attendant on that route, rather than a different route having different legal incidents and consequences, for better or worse stamp duty will be assessable accordingly.
In the present case the sale agreement and the development agreement and indeed, the transfer were all part of one transaction in the sense that together they comprised a single package or bargain. They were all executed on the same day and no doubt all three were executed simultaneously. Clearly the end result intended by the parties was that the land, previously belonging to the developers would become the property of the taxpayer company together with the new buildings being constructed by the developers. The commercial object of the transaction was that the taxpayer would acquire a development being carried out for it by the developers with funds provided by the taxpayer company.
However, I am unable to characterise the transaction by which that end result was sought to be achieved as a sale of the land with finished buildings thereon. That, manifestly, was not the legal shape of this transaction. The sale agreement was, as the parties intended, completed independently of the carrying out of the building works under the development agreement.’

Sir Donald Nicholls V-C
[2002] STC 863
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Helena Housing Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Feb-2010
FTTTx CORPORATION TAX – ASSESSMENT – DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE – Was the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for its Schedule A business – No – Was the Appellant a Charity – No – Appeal dismissed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.463816

FTTTx SDRT – acquisition of target company as part of which overall transaction shares issued to exchange agent on trust for target’s ex-shareholders and subsequently ADRs issued to target’s ex-shareholders – whether SDRT charge on transfer of shares to issuer of ADRs was unlawful under the Capital Duties Directive and/or the Treaty – no reference to CJEU – appeal allowed

[2012] UKFTT 163 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.462584

The company appealed against a finding that its stamp duty land tax saving scheme was ineffective. The court was now asked whether a sale on by a company to a newly formed partnership comprising itself and four other partners of a lease which the company had already contracted to acquire could take advantage of paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 which would (in the circumstances of the case) have had the effect of reducing to nil the liability to SDLT on a transfer of a chargeable interest from the partner to a partnership.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded.
The paragraph 10 relief was not available because the statutory disregard of the completion of the first contract meant that the company which was the purchaser under the first contract with the original vendor never acquired a chargeable interest in the property which it was able to and did transfer to the partnership.
Lewison LJ said:
‘Section 43(1) defines a ‘land transaction’ as ‘any acquisition of a chargeable interest’. The focus is on what is acquired; not on what is disposed of. An acquisition can take place without any act of the parties. In my judgment, therefore, the fact that B acquires a chargeable interest as the result of an instrument giving effect to a transaction between him and A does not necessarily entail the proposition that the interest in A’s hands was itself a chargeable interest. If there is no land transaction, there cannot have been the acquisition of a chargeable interest. Although the word ‘vendor’ is defined by section 43 (4) it is notable that the word does not appear anywhere in section 44. Accordingly, I do not see any inconsistency between, on the one hand, accepting that the Company was entitled to an equitable interest (which is an interest in land in the real world) and, on the other, concluding that that equitable interest does not count as a chargeable interest for the purposes of SDLT while it is in the Company’s hands.
. . ..
30. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 is not so much concerned with the acquisition of a chargeable interest by a partnership as the transfer by a partner of a chargeable interest. It looks at a transaction from the perspective of the transferor. This contrasts with the general scheme of SDLT whose focus is on acquisitions, and looks at transactions from the perspective of the transferee. It seems to me to be clear that a partner cannot transfer a chargeable interest to a partnership unless he has a chargeable interest to transfer. But that is not to say that he cannot transfer an interest in land to a partnership; merely that it is not a chargeable interest in his hands. In the hands of the partnership, of course, it will be a chargeable interest and the time at which the partnership acquired that chargeable interest is ascertained by the application of section 44 (3) as modified by section 45 (3) .
. . ..
32. Accordingly, in my judgment the correct analysis is as follows.
33. When the Company entered into the contract with L and G section 44 (2) applied. Thus the Company was not regarded as having entered into a land transaction. Because a land transaction is defined as any acquisition of a chargeable interest, it must also follow that the Company was not regarded as having acquired a chargeable interest. It would acquire a chargeable interest on completion if section 44 (3) applied. Section 44 is intended to apply generally to the SDLT code.
When the Company entered into the contract with the Partnership section 45 (2) applied. Thus the Partnership was not regarded as having entered into a land transaction and, just as in the case of the Company, was not regarded as having acquired a chargeable interest. However, it was regarded as having entered into a contract for a land transaction, the consideration for which was so much of the consideration under the original contract as is referable to the subject-matter of the transfer of rights. In the jargon of the Act the contract between L and G and the Company is ‘the original contract’; and the contract between the Company and the Partnership is ‘the secondary contract’. Section 44 takes effect subject to modifications made by section 45.
Both the contract between L and G and the Company and the contract between the Company and the Partnership were completed on the same day. Thus on the facts of this case completion of the original contract took place at the same time as, and in connection with, completion of the secondary contract. But in those circumstances section 45 (3) says that the completion of the original contract must be disregarded. This disregard must be made for the purpose of section 44. The inevitable consequence of the statutory instruction to disregard completion of the contract between L and G and the Company for the purpose of section 44 is that section 44 (3) does not apply to completion of that contract. Since section 44 (2) has the result that the Company did not acquire a chargeable interest by entering into the contract with L and G, and on the facts of this case section 44 (3) does not apply to completion of that contract, it must follow that the Company did not enter into a land transaction for the purposes of SDLT. Accordingly for the purposes of SDLT the Company never acquired a chargeable interest.
When the contract between the Company and the Partnership was completed, section 44 (3) applied to the latter’s acquisition of a chargeable interest. Thus the effective date of its land transaction was the date of completion of its contract with the Company.
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 only applies if a partner transfers a chargeable interest to a partnership. Since, for the purposes of SDLT, the Company did not acquire a chargeable interest, that paragraph cannot apply. It follows, therefore that the Partnership is not entitled to rely on the exemption. It follows, therefore that the Partnership is liable to pay SDLT on the consideration which it gave for its own acquisition, as prescribed by section 50 and Schedule 4 paragraph 1.’

Maurice Kay VP CA LJ, Lewison LJ, Gloster L
[2013] EWCA Civ 907, [2013] WLR(D) 311, [2013] 31 EG 51, [2013] STC 2150, [2013] BTC 661, [2014] 1 WLR 1136, [2013] 3 EGLR 159, [2013] STI 2570, [2013] 31 EG 5
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2003 43
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2016
The company had purchased the site of the former Chelsea barracks. It was in turn owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, which financed the purchase by a Sharia compliant loan scheme, which was implemented creating a lease and buy back . .
Cited – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.513693

UTTC SDLT – sub-sale – acquisition by partnership – effect of sections 45 and 44 on paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 FA 2003 – appeal dismissed.

Henderson J
[2012] UKUT 399 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.466706

FTTTx Stamp Duty Land Tax – failure to file land transaction return – penalty – reasonable excuse – unrepresented tenant did not know of obligation to file return and was not informed by landlord, solicitors or HMRC – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed.

[2010] UKFTT 309 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.422337

FTTTx Stamp Duty Land Tax – Sub-sale Relief – s45 FA 2003. Whether tax mitigation scheme qualified for relief – No. Whether discovery assessment valid – Yes. Appeal dismissed

Khan J
[2013] UKFTT 198 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.472389

Transactions involving multiple dwellings – purchase of property with main house, pool building and barn building – did pool building and/or barn building count as a second dwelling? – was pool building and/or barn building suitable for use as a single dwelling? – recent guidance of Upper Tribunal in Fiander applied – buildings lacked kitchen facilities – held: balance of factors indicated buildings not suitable for use as single dwelling – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 291 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.667916

Multiple Dwellings Relief – strike out application – time limit for claim expired -whether claim can be made for overpayment relief – procedural errors by HMRC – whether appealable decision
[2021] UKFTT 226 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.663735

Transactions involving multiple dwellings – purchase of property with a building in addition to the main dwelling – did the building count as a second dwelling? – was the building suitable for use as a single dwelling? – recent guidance of Upper Tribunal in Fiander applied – building lacked kitchen facilities – held: balance of factors indicated building was not suitable for use as single dwelling – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 292 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.667913

SDRT – penalties for late payment and late filing – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 310 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.667904

Discovery assessments – whether information made available to HMRC before enquiry window closed – whether HMRC could reasonably have been expected to be aware of insufficiency of tax before that time – date on which discovery was made – whether ‘stale’ – held discovery assessments valid – appeals dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 76 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.663653

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – tax avoidance scheme – sub-sale relief – discovery assessment – whether HMRC had made a discovery – whether understatement of tax caused by taxpayers or person acting on their behalf – whether taxpayers or person acting on their behalf was careless
[2021] UKFTT 297 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.667910

[1819] EngR 786, (1819) 2 Stark 559, (1819) 171 ER 735 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.331989

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – Multiple Dwellings Relief – para 7(2)(b) Schedule 6B Finance Act 2003 – whether annex of property ‘suitable for use as a single dwelling’ – case law meaning of – ‘dwelling’ in other legal contexts and extrinsic aid to statutory construction set aside – guidance from Fiander UT followed – objective assessment of physical attributes of property at effective date – integral character in design layout and access – whether privacy and security critically compromised – whether separate, self-contained living unit – absence of kitchen facilities considered – suitability for use limited to a particular type of occupant – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 305 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.667922

Whether a property was partly non-residential by virtue of the grant of a commercial lease on the date of completion of purchase – no – appeal dismissed.
[2021] UKFTT 157 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.663715

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – transactions involving multiple dwellings – purchase of property with main house and annex – did main house and annex each count as a dwelling? – corridor connecting annex with main house – property unoccupied at completion – were main house and annex both suitable for use as a single dwelling? – no – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 190 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.651574

SDLT – Multiple Dwellings Relief – whether part of a large residential property was suitable to be used as a single dwelling – no – appeal dismissed.
[2021] UKFTT 74 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.663672

SDLT -Arrangement under which house sold to company and then distributed to shareholders on reduction of capital – para 1 Sch4, section 45 (2007 version) (Vardy not followed) and s75A FA 2003. Determination – jurisdiction to hear appeal
[2021] UKFTT 208 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.663750

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – multiple dwellings relief – whether part of a residential property was suitable for use as a single dwelling – no – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 322 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.667937

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – land transaction – effect of transfer of rights by grant of option – Finance Act 2003, sections 44-46 and 75
[2020] UKFTT 292 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.652737

SDLT – application for permission to make a late appeal – application by HMRC to strike-out for want of jurisdiction – preliminary issue directed – time limits for amendment of SDLT land transaction return – section 44 and paras 6, Sch 10, Finance Act 2003
[2020] UKFTT 113 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.649153

SDLT – service of enquiry notices – whether properly addressed and sent to Appellants registered office – s 84 Finance Act 2003
[2020] UKFTT 174 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.651589

Stamp Duty Reserve Tax – SDRT – Penalties for Late Payment and Late Filing
[2021] UKFTT 276 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.666596

SDLT – Multiple Dwellings Relief – Whether Acquisition of Property Involved – An Interest In At Least Two Dwellings
[2021] UKFTT 271 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.666593

Stamp Duty Land Tax – Residential or Mixed Use – Woodland Within Curtilage of Country House – whether ‘garden or grounds of residence’ – yes – whether mixed use – no – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 248 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.666588

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – discovery assessments – paragraph 28 and paragraph 30 Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 – whether assessment ‘stale’ – whether disclosure note containing details of tax avoidance scheme sent to HMRC – whether disclosure sufficient to ‘notify’ HMRC of the insufficiency – paragraph 30(4)(c)(ii) Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 – whether HMRC could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the insufficiency of tax before the relevant date – paragraph 30(3) Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003
[2020] UKFTT 179 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.651566

(Judgment) Raising of capital – Directive 69/335/EEC – ‘Duties paid by way of fees or dues – Charge for entry in the commercial register
[2001] EUECJ C-206/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:347, [2001] ECR I-4679
Bailii
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.162757

SDLT – (1) whether flat with defective cladding a ‘dwelling’ for purposes of (i) residential transaction charge and (ii) high-vale residential transaction charge in para 3 Sch4A FA 2003
(2) relief under para 5 from the high-value charge under para 3 Sch 4A FA 2003 -para 5G: withdrawal of relief – effect of s 81(1A)
[2020] UKFTT 180 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.651575

Multiple Dwellings Relief

Multiple Dwellings Relief (FA 2003 Sch 6B) – Entitlement to claim relief- Multiple dwellings not yet physically constructed on the property on the effective date of the transaction (EDT) – Relevance of the grant, prior to the EDT, of planning permission for the construction of multiple dwellings- Relevance of work undertaken on the property prior to the EDT or on the day of the EDT after the transaction has been completed
[2021] UKFTT 251 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.666241

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – Multiple Dwellings Relief – whether annex of unoccupied property suitable for use as a single dwelling – test to be applied – dispute as to evidence presented to FTT – approach on appeal to record of evidence – HMRC v Royal College of Paediatrics followed
[2021] UKUT 156 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.665565

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – repayment of tax under s. 44(9) of Finance Act 2003 – whether time limit provided by para. 6(3) of Sch.10 to Finance Act 2003 applies – yes – appeal allowed
[2021] UKUT 170 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.665567

acquisition of freehold property and acquisition of right to use nearby communal garden – amount of tax chargeable – section 55 Finance Act 2003 – Table A or Table B rates? – were there linked transactions?
Held: no, as different vendors – did the relevant land include non-residential property? –
Held: no – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 104 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.663686

Multiple Dwellings Relief

Stamp Duty Land Tax – Multiple Dwellings Relief – Main house and annexe-whether one dwelling or two dwellings-whether annexe and main house each suitable for use as a dwelling
[2021] UKFTT 122 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.663693

SDLT Multiple Dwellings Relief- whether property comprises two dwellings- whether each part suitable for use as a dwelling. No appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 119 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.663694

Application To Strike Out

Appeal to the Tribunal against HMRC’s refusal to allow a late application to recover Stamp Duty Land Tax amounting to pounds 2,400 which had to be paid when he purchased a new main residence before he had sold the existing one.
[2021] UKFTT 224 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.663774

SDLT- sale of house and land – rate of SDLT applicable – whether Table A or Table B – whether the house and land included land that was not residential property – whether all of land was, or formed part of, garden or grounds of house – Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116
[2021] UKUT 68 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662808

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – whether market value provisions of section 53 FA 2003 apply where consideration for land transaction an annuity – yes – appeal against the decision of the FTT reported at [2019] UKFTT 541 (TC) dismissed
[2021] UKUT 103 (TCC), [2021] WLR(D) 276
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662818

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – follower notice – whether ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’ not to take corrective action – whether actions after the deadline are relevant – amount of penalty – appeal allowed
[2021] UKUT 81 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662815

TAX – Income Tax and Stamp Duty Land Tax – valuation of care homes – leasehold interests let at market rent – whether premiums paid form part of the value of the leasehold interests – trade related properties – trading potential – profits method of valuation – RICS Guidance – section 272, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 – appeals allowed
[2021] UKUT 76 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 June 2021; Ref: scu.662181