Landmark Stamp Duty Cases

Hyman v HMRC: Gardens and Grounds

Upper Tribunal [2021] UKUT 68 (TCC); Court of Appeal, with Goodfellow, [2022] EWCA Civ 185 (17 February 2022).

Hyman is not an MDR case. The buyers of houses with substantial land argued that part of the land went beyond the garden or grounds of the dwelling, so the purchase was mixed use and taxed at the lower non-residential rates. The Court of Appeal held that there is no objective size limit on the garden or grounds in s116 FA 2003 and dismissed the appeals, so the buyers paid the residential rates.

The case is the leading authority against "grounds are too big to be residential" claims. For whether an annexe is a separate dwelling, see our MDR case law summary.

MDR Abolition and Transitional Cases

Multiple Dwellings Relief was abolished for transactions with an effective date on or after 1 June 2024. Contracts exchanged on or before 6 March 2024 (the Spring Budget 2024 announcement date) keep MDR whenever they complete, provided the contract is not varied and the rights under it are not assigned after that date. No completion deadline attaches to that protection. Tribunal cases on the transitional rules have examined:

• Whether contracts exchanged on or before 6 March 2024 qualify for protection
• Whether a later variation or assignment breaks the protection
• Treatment of contract variations after 6 March 2024
• Anti-forestalling provisions and backdating attempts

Current Position (2026)

MDR remains abolished. Properties with multiple dwellings bought with an effective date on or after 1 June 2024 (unless protected by the transitional rules) attract SDLT calculated on the total purchase price without averaging relief. This significantly increased tax liability for portfolio landlords and multi-unit property investors.

Case Background

BTR Core Fund bought a leasehold interest in a Manchester development of 350 residential dwellings and commercial premises for around £98 million. It claimed multiple dwellings relief on the return and calculated the tax at the higher rates, in line with the HMRC guidance that applied at the time. HMRC later revised that guidance, but only after the window for amending the return had closed. BTR claimed overpayment relief under Schedule 10 paragraph 34 FA 2003 instead, and HMRC refused it on the basis of Case A in paragraph 34A, which excludes a claim where the tax is excessive by reason of a mistake in a claim or election.

Tribunal Decision & Impact

The Upper Tribunal allowed BTR's appeal and held that Case A did not apply, so the overpayment relief claim of £3,064,633 stood. The Tribunal drew a line between claiming the relief and calculating the tax once it has been claimed. BTR had claimed multiple dwellings relief correctly by answering yes on the return and entering the right code. The error came later, when it self-assessed the tax due under section 76(3) and applied the wrong rate. That was a mistake in the computation, not a mistake in the claim.

The Tribunal also took a narrow, purposive approach to the paragraph 34A exclusions generally, noting that Schedule 6B describes the relief available if a claim is made, which points to the calculation provisions governing how relief is applied rather than what the claim itself consists of.

Impact on Taxpayers

• A computational error made after a relief has been validly claimed is not automatically a "mistake in a claim" under Case A
• The paragraph 34A exclusions are read narrowly, so a refusal citing one of them is not the end of the matter
• Overpayment relief still runs for four years from the effective date of the transaction under paragraph 34B(1)
• The decision matters most where HMRC guidance changed after the 12-month amendment window closed
• Specialist advice is needed before relying on this, because the outcome turned on how the return was completed

Case Background

An agreement to assign a lease was substantially performed, which triggered an SDLT charge of £1,920,000, and the transaction was then not carried into effect. Section 44(9) FA 2003 provides for repayment in that situation, but says it must be claimed by amending the return, and the 12-month amendment window had closed by the time the position was known. The taxpayer claimed overpayment relief under Schedule 10 paragraph 34 instead. HMRC argued that the wording of section 44(9) shut that route off completely.

Tribunal Decision & Impact

The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal. It held that the requirement in section 44(9) governs the procedure for a section 44(9) claim, and does not decide whether a separate remedy exists elsewhere in the Act. Paragraph 34 is a standalone relief of last resort with its own conditions, its own procedure and its own four-year time limit, and missing the section 44(9) amendment deadline does not by itself bar it.

The Tribunal also observed that Cases A and C in paragraph 34A would rarely apply to a section 44(9) situation, because each presupposes something that is absent here: Case A a mistake in the original return, and Case C a relief opportunity that expired. Neither describes a right to repayment that only arises once the transaction falls away.

Impact on Taxpayers

• A missed amendment deadline does not automatically extinguish a repayment claim, though paragraph 34 has to be satisfied on its own terms
• The four-year limit in paragraph 34B(1) runs from the effective date of the transaction, not from the date the deal fell away
• Most relevant to substantial performance cases where the contract is later rescinded or not completed
• The decision concerns section 44(9). It does not decide how paragraph 34A applies where another statutory route, such as section 80, remains open
• See the refund claim deadlines for the windows that apply to ordinary refunds
• The judgment calls the property Gordon House, its name at the time, next to the Royal Hospital Chelsea. The Times reports that this is Providence House, whose 2026 sale raised a separate stamp duty question under the six-dwelling rule

Case Background

Archer v Revenue Scotland is a landmark Scottish LBTT decision concerning commercial lease extensions. The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Tax Chamber issued its decision on 10 July 2025, providing the first major judicial interpretation of how LBTT applies to commercial lease extensions where additional rent and term modifications interact. The case has wider implications because Revenue Scotland had previously taken a position on lease extensions that this ruling potentially undermines, opening the door for LBTT repayment claims by commercial tenants.

Tribunal Decision & Impact

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the taxpayer (Archer), finding that Revenue Scotland's approach to calculating LBTT on the lease extension overstated the chargeable consideration. The decision has significant ripple effects: businesses that paid LBTT on commercial lease extensions on a similar basis since LBTT came into force on 1 April 2015 may be entitled to repayments.

The Tribunal's reasoning is also relevant to how the NPV calculation treats variable consideration in lease grants more generally, potentially reshaping the lease-extension SDLT/LBTT landscape across the UK if HMRC adopts a similar interpretation. See the Scotland LBTT administration guide for the filing and refund process.

Impact on Taxpayers

• Commercial tenants who paid LBTT on lease extensions in Scotland since 2015 should review their position
• Refund/repayment claims must be made within Scotland's 5-year overpayment relief window
• Revenue Scotland may issue updated guidance, watch for policy response
• HMRC has not yet indicated whether it will adopt a similar interpretation for English SDLT lease extensions
• Specialist tax advice strongly recommended for any historic claim review