A recent Upper Tribunal (UT) decision has brought significant clarity regarding validity of HMRC's procedures, particularly for complex property transactions. This ruling tackled two critical issues: whether HMRC’s enquiry letters remain valid despite minor errors, and when the tax authority can use its extended 20-year assessment window, provided under Paragraph 31(2A)(b) of Schedule 10 of the Finance Act 2003 (the “Act”), instead of the usual 4-year limit.
What makes this case especially important is its wider impact. A considerable number of similar disputes involving the same stamp duty avoidance schemes were on hold, awaiting this outcome. The UT’s conclusions now provide essential guidance for resolving all these cases consistently.
Background
In 2010 and 2011, three pairs of taxpayers (the Appellants) purchased residential properties in the UK. To avoid paying the Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), they used a marketed tax avoidance scheme. This scheme involved a complex series of transactions centred around a company called Vale Property Finance PCC Limited, based in Guernsey. Essentially, Vale acted as a temporary middleman set up purely for this scheme. Here’s how it worked:
The Appellants filed three separate SDLT returns (labelled A, B, and C by the UT). Crucially, they claimed significant reliefs on these returns, aiming to reduce their SDLT liability to nothing.
The Dispute Emerges
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was not convinced. In June 2011, HMRC informed the Appellants and their agent that they were opening formal enquiries into these returns. Years later, in 2017, HMRC concluded the relief claims were invalid and issued “closure notices” demanding the unpaid tax. In addition to the closure notices, they also issued a separate “discovery assessments” for the tax they believed HMRC owed.
Notably, the Appellants had already conceded their position prior to the commencement of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) hearing. The Appellants had admitted that the scheme itself did not work for avoiding SDLT because of a specific anti-avoidance rule (provided under Section 75A of the Act). The tax was legally due. So, this case was not about whether the tax HMRC owed, but about how HMRC went about demanding it. The Appellants challenged the validity of HMRC's actions on two main grounds.
The Two Key Legal Questions
Were HMRC's 2011 Enquiry Notices Legally Valid?
The Appellants argued the notices were invalid and confusing. The letter sent directly to them mentioned an enquiry into only one land transaction return. However, they had filed two returns (Return A and Return C). Although the letter sent to their agents mentioned that the enquiry was related to both land transaction returns, the Appellants argued that the inconsistency created ambiguity. As a result, they claimed they were unsure which return was under scrutiny, rendering the entire enquiry - and the subsequent 2017 closure notices demanding tax - invalid.
The UT applied an “objective test”. It asked: would a reasonable person, knowing what the taxpayer and their agent knew at the time, understand which returns HMRC was investigating by looking at all the relevant letters together?
The findings were that, while the letter to the Appellants alone was ambiguous, the letter sent to their agent on the same day clearly referred to enquiries into both Return A and Return C. Reading the letters together, a reasonable recipient would understand HMRC was enquiring into both returns. Therefore, the notices were valid. Clarity is important, but minor ambiguities resolved by looking at the full picture do not automatically invalidate HMRC's actions.
Were HMRC's 2017 Discovery Assessments Issued
Too Late?
There are strict time limits for HMRC to issue tax assessments. Normally, HMRC has only 4-years from the effective date of a transaction. The Appellants argued the 2017 discovery assessments were outside this 4-years window (as the transactions were in 2010/2011).
The UT concluded that the special 20-year time limit did, in fact, apply in this case. One scenario qualifying for the longer limit is if a taxpayer fails to file a required tax return for a “notifiable transaction” and essentially, Section 75A of the Act is a notifiable transaction.
Section 75A of the Act contains an anti-avoidance rule targeting arrangements involving a series of complex transactions that ultimately reduce the amount of SDLT payable compared to what would otherwise be due. Under this rule, such a series of transactions is treated as a single “notional transaction”. This notional transaction must be reported separately through its own SDLT return. In this case, the taxpayers failed to file a return for the notional transaction, thereby triggering the 20-year assessment time limit.
A point of contention between FTT and HMRC was whether Return A could be interpreted as being the return for the notional transaction. The UT overturned the decision of the FTT and clarified that Return A could not be interpreted as encompassing the notional transaction. They pointed out that Return A claimed a specific relief ("sub-sale relief") that simply did not apply to the notional transaction created by Section 75A of the Act. Return A also reported £0 tax due, whereas the notional transaction definitely had tax owing. Therefore, Return A could not be treated as the required return for Section 75A of the Act notional transaction. The 20-year limit applied in this case, making the 2017 assessment valid.
Implications
The UT’s decision provides important clarity on how HMRC's enquiry notices should be interpreted, even when they contain technical imperfections. UT confirmed that when determining whether an enquiry notice is valid, we should look objectively at all communications received by both the taxpayer and their agent – not just one letter in isolation. In this case, while the letter sent directly to the Appellants appeared ambiguous (referencing only one return), the notice sent to their agent clearly covered both relevant returns. Reading both letters together, a reasonable person would understand HMRC's intent.
Perhaps more significantly, the ruling delivered a crucial message about compliance requirements for complex property transactions caught by anti-avoidance rules (specifically Section 75A of the Act). The court emphasised that taxpayers must file a separate tax return for the artificial notional transaction created by these rules – even if they have already filed returns for the individual steps in the scheme. This is not just a technicality. As this case demonstrates, failing to file that specific return carries serious consequences: it triggers a 20-year time limit for HMRC to make tax assessments, rather than the usual 4-year window after the effective date of transaction.
Conclusion
The UT ruled against the Appellants on both grounds. HMRC's 2011 enquiry notices were valid, and their 2017 discovery assessments was issued within the extended 20-year time limit because the Appellants failed to file a separate return for the “notional transaction” created by the anti-avoidance rule.
While the decision offered clarity on certain procedural matters, the interpretations largely favoured HMRC over the taxpayers. As this case demonstrates, even a seemingly minor procedural oversight - such as failing to file a return for a notional transaction - can have significant consequences, potentially extending HMRC’s enquiry window from four years to as many as twenty.
Given how technicalities can dramatically impact outcomes like tax windows, we strongly recommend consulting experts before going through complex property deals.
- Title Splitting: The Tax Implications Solicitors Don’t Cover (2026) - 21 August 2026
- Property 118 Ltd and Cotswold Barristers Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1111 (TC) - 8 August 2026
- Stamp Duty on New Builds: What Buyers Need to Know - 1 April 2026
