Taxpayer denied £80k SDLT relief
The Upper Tribunal has dismissed an appeal on the availability of Multiple Dwellings Relief worth £80,000 on a high value property in London. Why didn’t it qualify?

Recap. When purchasing a property containing more than one dwelling, Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) reduces the SDLT payable by calculating the tax based on the purchase price divided by the number of dwellings. The relief is particularly valuable where a high value property has a self-contained annexe within the grounds because SDLT is charged at lower rates on cheaper properties. However, the annexe must be a separate dwelling to the main home. This means that the occupier of the annexe and the occupier of the main home must be able to live separately from each other and have sufficient privacy and security.
Reasoning. In this case, the property had an annexe with a separate doorbell and lockable doors, however it was only accessible via the main house. In addition, an occupant of the annexe using the front door would have access to each of the reception room, the study and the dining room (leading to the kitchen and bathroom) on the ground floor. Therefore, the annexe was not a separate dwelling, and the appeal was dismissed. If this annexe had a separate entrance with no access to the rest of the property, a claim for MDR may have been successful. However, there are various other factors that need to be taken into account and so the availability of MDR should be determined prior to purchase.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?