Interesting SDLT MDR case

https://www.patrickcannon.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Decision-TC-2019-06063-TC-2020-00031-Ladson

Didn't find your answer?

Even though the result is unsurprising.

https://www.patrickcannon.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Decision-TC-201...

The reasoning in para 117 looks a bit iffy and suggests that if the buyer had built up to golden brick and bought that partly built dwelling from the seller, then that would be somehow different for MDR purposes compared to the seller or a third party building up to golden brick, so perhaps that bit is appealable (apart from that iffy paragraph 117, there was no finding that the bore holes were not physical construction work (re the dwellings), so that looks like a non-sequitur). Otherwise, it looks correct to me. 

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
13th Jul 2021 13:53

More iffy SDLT MDR reasoning here: https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12045/TC...

S 83 FA 2003 was not considered (re the “wrong” enquiry) and in para 40 it’s hard to see how it makes a difference if failing to make the MDR claim was reasonable or not for para 34A(2)(b) purposes.

The LPL & AKA MDR case supports my s 83 point and the UT appear to agree with me re latter point at para 112 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ec03b4d3bf7f568a2d9343/...

Overall these cases show FTT judges in a pretty poor light re interpreting SDLT legislation.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Nov 2022 12:54

S 83 addressed by UT at para 41 et seq: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2022/TC08358.pdf

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
21st Nov 2022 10:20

Looks like taxpayer has lost their appeal: https://www.patrickcannon.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Ladson-Preston-...

Per para 22 the UT (and the parties) agreed with my above FTT para 117 point.

Thanks (0)