fbpx

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates.

A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer’s SDLT return included a claim for MDR and indicated that the amount of SDLT due was £40,000. However, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) concluded that MDR was not available and the correct amount of SDLT was therefore £114,750. After the buyer’s statutory review appeal against that decision was unsuccessful, he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).

Under Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 6B of the Finance Act 2003, a building or part of a building counts as a dwelling if it is ‘used or suitable for use as a single dwelling’, or if it is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use. The buyer argued that the annex, as currently configured, had all of the amenities required for independent living and was separate from the main house. HMRC asserted that the annex was not sufficiently independent of the main house, and that the work carried out by the time the sale was completed was insufficient to demonstrate that a single dwelling was in the process of being constructed.

Dismissing the appeal, the FTT concluded that the annex lacked several features needed to consider it a single dwelling. There was no evidence that it had its own postal address or Council Tax billing, or that the internal door between it and the main property was lockable on both sides. The annex did not have separate water or electricity meters. In addition, the buyer had not proven that planning permission for the work had been obtained, or alternatively that it was not needed. The FTT also noted that no tenants had occupied the annex in the two years after the work was completed.

The FTT further ruled that the work done by the date of completion was insufficient to show that the annex was in the process of being adapted for use as a single dwelling.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...