Commissioners for HMRC v Christian Peter Candy

Overpayment relief under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 is a separate statutory remedy of last resort, with its own time limit and restrictions. The requirement in section 44(9) that a repayment under that subsection be claimed by amending the land transaction return governs that claim route. It does not, by itself, bar a separate paragraph 34 claim once the return amendment period has expired. Any such claim must still meet paragraph 34's requirements, including its threshold for relief and the restrictions in paragraph 34A. The Tribunal did not decide whether the taxpayer's claim met those requirements.

Mr Candy paid SDLT after an agreement for the assignment of a long lease had been substantially performed. The original agreement was later novated to his brother and was not carried into effect by the original parties. Mr Candy sought repayment under section 44(9) of the Finance Act 2003, but the claim could no longer be made by amending his return. He then pursued overpayment relief under paragraph 34. HMRC refused that claim, but the First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Candy's appeal against the closure notice. HMRC appealed. The issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether section 44(9) precluded a paragraph 34 claim in those circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The FTT was right that section 44(9) of the Finance Act 2003 does not, by itself, prevent a taxpayer from seeking overpayment relief under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10.
2. In construing the provisions, the Tribunal applied the principles stated in R (on the application of O (a child)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKSC 3; [2023] AC 255. Statutory words are read in their context, and external materials play a secondary role. The Explanatory Notes and HMRC Technical Note supported the Tribunal's understanding of paragraph 34 but could not displace clear statutory language.
3. Paragraph 34 is a separate statutory remedy of last resort. It has its own procedure, the four-year time limit in paragraph 34B and the restrictions in paragraph 34A. It operates as a limited exception to the finality of an unamended return. The Tribunal agreed with the description of paragraph 34 in BTR Core Fund JPUT v HMRC [2026] UKUT 27 (TCC).
4. The words in section 44(9) requiring a repayment to be claimed by amending the land transaction return prescribe the procedure for a claim under that subsection. They do not make that route exclusive of a distinct statutory claim under paragraph 34. The similar requirement for claims to multiple dwellings relief in section 58D(2) did not prevent overpayment relief from being a separate remedy. The Tribunal relied on BTR Core Fund JPUT v HMRC and considered the analogous decisions in L-L-O Contracting Limited v HMRC and Smallman v HMRC. It noted that the reasoning in Smallman v HMRC did not directly address HMRC's present argument.
5. Paragraph 34(6) prevents relief outside the statutory code, such as a common-law restitution claim. It does not make section 44(9) the exclusive statutory route. The Tribunal observed that Cases A and C in paragraph 34A may be difficult to apply where the right to repayment arises only after the return amendment period has expired. It left open whether paragraph 34's threshold and other conditions were met in this case, because HMRC did not pursue that issue on appeal.

1. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), [2026] UKUT 282 (TCC) : dismissed HMRC's appeal, leaving the FTT's decision in place.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), [2025] UKFTT 00416 (TC): allowed Mr Candy's appeal against HMRC's refusal of the paragraph 34 claim.