Could BTL investors avoid 3% stamp duty surcharge following tax tribunal ruling?

Could BTL investors avoid 3% stamp duty surcharge following tax tribunal ruling?

Todays other news
This is the claim by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation...
The warning says no landlord, anywhere, is immune from the...
The banning of Section 21 is the cornerstone of the...
The penalties totalled over £42,000...
Meanwhile buyer choice is at its highest for this time...


HMRC could soon be flooded with stamp duty surcharge refund requests from buy-to-let investors following a potential precedent set at a recent tax tribunal in which a couple acquired a derelict building in which they were able to negate the additional 3% stamp duty charge on purchases of second homes.

The tax tribunal ruling has revealed a possible scenario where buy-to-let investors can avoid paying the 3% stamp duty surcharge, and that could pave the way for many more who have already paid the charge, to request a refund from HMRC.

The tax tribunal, held in Bristol, suggests that certain property purchases may not be subject to the additional 3% surcharge, just the standard rate of stamp duty.

The case in point saw Paul and Nikki Bewley acquire a derelict bungalow in Western-super-Mare, which was at the time uninhabitable.

The couple opted to bulldoze the original building in order to build a new property in its place, in the belief that they would not be liable for the 3% charge for acquiring an additional property home.

However, HMRC contested this view and believed that the 3% stamp duty surcharge was applicable, on the grounds that a property was capable of being used as a dwelling sometime in the future.

But a recent tax tribunal ruled against the HMRC claims, stating that the surcharge was only chargeable if the home was in suitable living condition immediately.

This judgment suggests that buy-to-let landlords may have a case for exemption from the 3% surcharge, if buying a property that is uninhabitable at the time of purchase.

Specialist buy-to-let broker Commercial Trust Limited believes this ruling could potentially represent an opportunity for retrospective claims from buy-to-let investors who have paid the additional charge on properties that were uninhabitable at the time they were bought.

HMRC has yet to decide on an appeal, stating: “We’re considering the judgment carefully.”

Share this article ...

Join the conversation: Login and have your say

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions. All comments are screened using specialist software and may be reviewed by our editorial team before publication. Landlord Today reserves the right to edit, withhold or delete comments that violate our guidelines, including those that harass, degrade, or intimidate others. Users who post such content may be banned from commenting.
By commenting, you agree to our Commenting Terms of Use.
Recommended for you
Related Articles
This is the claim by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation...
Large-scale landlords look to remortgage...
New research suggests the impact on rents will be severe....
The BBC and The Times have discovered the council tax...
A paper is to be published after the May local...
Recommended for you
Latest Features
Jonathan Dinsdale is a senior associate in the Thames Valley...
Landlords warn anti-PRS rhetoric risks driving more investors out of...
Justice for Property Rights urges ministers to adopt a balanced,...
Sponsored Content

Send to a friend

In order to send this article to a friend you must first login. Click on the button below to login or sign up.