Non-Residential Stamp Duty: Paddock Ruled as Such in Recent SDLT Case

Non-residential stamp duty land tax (SDLT) rates offer a significant advantage over residential rates for costly properties, prompting buyers to explore ways to leverage these lower rates. In a recent high-profile case involving Mr and Mrs Suterwalla, their property’s separate paddock challenged the prevailing notion of what qualifies as “garden or grounds” for SDLT purposes. Let’s delve into the details of the case and uncover the implications surrounding non-residential stamp duty.

HMRC v Mr and Mrs Suterwalla: Shedding Light on Non-Residential Stamp Duty

• Property Purchase and SDLT Calculation: The couple purchased a property valued at £3.6 million and initially paid SDLT at non-residential rates, amounting to £169,500. However, HMRC contended that residential rates, totaling £330,750, should apply.
  
• Paddock Classification: Mr and Mrs Suterwalla put forth a compelling argument, claiming that the separate paddock should not be considered as part of the property’s gardens or grounds. They emphasised its location, function, and the existence of a commercial grazing agreement with an annual fee of £1,000.
  
• Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal sided with the taxpayers, ruling that the paddock had no functional relation to the dwelling house. Since it was subject to a commercial arrangement for grazing horses, it qualified as non-residential property.
  
• Implications for Non-Residential Stamp Duty: This decision challenges the prevailing notion that anything purchased with a property should be treated as grounds. It underscores the importance of considering commercial agreements, such as grazing arrangements, which permit land to be used for purposes other than dwelling, thereby supporting eligibility for non-residential stamp duty rates.
  
• Timing of the Grazing Agreement: Despite the agreement being entered into after completion, the Tribunal considered its relevance in determining the paddock’s classification.

Our View:

While this decision is noteworthy, as it departs from previous interpretations, the possibility of an HMRC appeal remains uncertain. The timing of the grazing agreement may be a point of contention, given its execution after completion. Commercial agreements, like grazing arrangements, that allow land to be used non-residentially, provide a strong argument for applying non-residential stamp duty rates. For optimal outcomes, sellers are advised to have existing agreements in place, facilitating a seamless transition during completion. It is worth noting the apparent incongruence in SDLT rules, where even a small non-residential area can have a profound impact on the payable tax amount.

Conclusion:

The recent ruling on Mr and Mrs Suterwalla’s property highlights the potential for a separate paddock to be classified as non-residential for SDLT purposes, offering significant advantages in terms of stamp duty rates. Understanding the nuances of mixed-use properties and engaging in strategic planning can help buyers optimise non-residential stamp duty. However, it is crucial to consult with tax professionals, considering the complex nature of SDLT regulations and the need for accurate interpretation. Seeking expert advice ensures compliance and may result in substantial tax savings, particularly in the realm of non-residential stamp duty.

If you need further help, contact us here and we’ll get back to you!