Richard Warner v The Commissioners for HMRC

A statutory time limit for amending a Stamp Duty Land Tax return cannot be extended by general discretion or exceptional circumstances. The words “except as otherwise provided” permit a later amendment only where another legislative provision specifically provides for it.

A claim for Multiple Dwellings Relief and a claim for overpayment relief are separate statutory routes. Whether entitlement to the former may support the latter was arguable. Permission to appeal was therefore refused on the time-limit ground but granted on the overpayment-relief and limited human-rights grounds.

The First-tier Tribunal struck out the Applicant’s appeal against HMRC’s refusal to accept a late claim to Multiple Dwellings Relief in respect of Stamp Duty Land Tax returns. The returns had been filed more than twelve months before the proposed amendments.

The FTT held that there was no appealable HMRC decision, that the amendment period could not be extended, and that the correspondence did not constitute a valid overpayment-relief claim. Permission to appeal was refused by the FTT and initially refused on the papers by the Upper Tribunal. Following an oral hearing, the Applicant renewed his application on three grounds.

The central questions were whether the statutory amendment period could be extended, whether entitlement to Multiple Dwellings Relief could support an overpayment-relief claim, and whether a Convention-compatible interpretation was required.

1. Ground 1 — amendment time limit. Permission was refused. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 imposes a twelve-month limit after the filing date. “Except as otherwise provided” refers to a specific provision in legislation. It does not confer a general discretion for exceptional or mitigating circumstances. The reasoning and rationale in Candy v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 1447 applied directly. The FTT had made no arguable error of law.
2. Schedule 6B. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 6B concerns a fresh return following specified changes of circumstances after Multiple Dwellings Relief has been claimed. It does not extend the period for amending an existing return.
3. Ground 2 — overpayment relief. Permission was granted. Paragraphs 34 to 34E of Schedule 10 establish an independent scheme, with different qualifying conditions, exclusions and time limits. Paragraph 34B(2) indicates that an overpayment-relief claim cannot be made in a land transaction return or its amendment. Nevertheless, it was arguable that correspondence claiming tax had been overpaid because of entitlement to Multiple Dwellings Relief might constitute a claim under paragraph 34.
4. It was also arguable that the FTT had not adequately addressed Case C in paragraph 34A(4), including whether the Applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known within the relevant period that the relief was available. The Tribunal declined to refuse permission on Case A because HMRC had not relied on it before the FTT.
5. Ground 3 — Convention rights. Permission was granted only insofar as section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 assisted the construction and application of paragraphs 34 and 34A. Permission was refused insofar as it challenged the paragraph 6(3) time limit. Applying the proportionality questions identified in Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39, the limit pursued certainty and finality, was rationally connected to that objective, was no more intrusive than necessary, and struck a fair balance.
6. The application was refused on Ground 1 and granted on refined Grounds 2 and 3.

• First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): struck out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that HMRC had made no appealable decision and rejecting the proposed late amendment and overpayment-relief routes.
• First-tier Tribunal: refused permission to appeal on 16 November 2023.
• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): refused permission on the papers on 3 April 2024. After an oral reconsideration hearing, permission was refused on Ground 1 and granted on refined Grounds 2 and 3.