Doe v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - transaction involving multiple dwellings) [2021] UKFTT 17 (TC) (25 January 2021)

Doe v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - transaction involving multiple dwellings) [2021] UKFTT 17 (TC) (25 January 2021)

The executed contract and TR1 were only provided on 3 July 2018, so HMRC's enquiry opened on 28 March 2019 was within the statutory 9-month window. The main house and annexe did not each count as a dwelling for MDR purposes because, objectively, the property did not provide sufficient privacy and security to be considered two separate dwellings at the time of completion.

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 17 (TC)
Parties
Appellants: Andrew and Tiffany Doe; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stamp Duty Land Tax, Multiple Dwellings Relief, Land Transactions, Enquiry Procedure
Tax Law Stamp Duty Land Tax Multiple Dwellings Relief Land Transactions Enquiry Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew and Tiffany Doe

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC validly opened an enquiry into the amended SDLT return within the statutory time period
  2. 2 Whether the main house and annexe each counted as a dwelling for the purposes of Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR)

Ratio Decidendi

The executed contract and TR1 were only provided on 3 July 2018, so HMRC's enquiry opened on 28 March 2019 was within the statutory 9-month window. The main house and annexe did not each count as a dwelling for MDR purposes because, objectively, the property did not provide sufficient privacy and security to be considered two separate dwellings at the time of completion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.