BTR Core Fund v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies overpayment relief exclusions

The Upper Tribunal has allowed an appeal in BTR Core Fund JPUT v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKUT 27 (TCC), determining that an error in calculating stamp duty land tax (SDLT) rates did not constitute a "mistake in a claim" for multiple dwellings relief (MDR), thereby entitling the taxpayer to overpayment relief of £3,064,633.

BTR Core Fund acquired a leasehold property in Manchester comprising 350 residential dwellings and commercial premises for approximately £98 million. When submitting its SDLT return claiming MDR, BTR applied higher rates of SDLT in accordance with HMRC guidance prevailing at that time. HMRC subsequently revised this guidance, but only after the amendment period for BTR's return had expired.

BTR claimed overpayment relief under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003. HMRC refused the claim, arguing that Case A of paragraph 34A applied—namely that the overpayment arose "by reason of a mistake in a claim". The First-tier Tribunal dismissed BTR's appeal by casting vote, prompting this appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal emphasised that Case A requires a purposive construction focussing on whether the overpayment was caused by a mistake in making the claim itself, rather than merely whether a mistake occurred whilst a claim was being made. Judges Scott and Aleksander identified the purpose of Case A as preventing taxpayers from circumventing time limits by making, altering or revoking claims outside statutory deadlines—essentially precluding "a second bite of the cherry".

Analysing the statutory framework, the Tribunal determined that making a claim for MDR required only: satisfaction of the eligibility criteria under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6B; submission within a land transaction return as required by section 58D(2); and completion of the relevant questions on the return form. Critically, the legislation imposed no requirement to quantify the relief amount when making the claim.

The Tribunal concluded that BTR had properly claimed MDR by answering "Yes" to the relief question and entering the appropriate code. The mistake arose subsequently when complying with the separate obligation under section 76(3) to self-assess the total tax due. This error in selecting the applicable SDLT rate occurred during the calculation process described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 6B, which the statute expressly framed as describing "the relief available if a claim is made"—not the claim itself.

The Tribunal noted that paragraph 5(6A), which required account to be taken of higher rates where applicable, was not a requirement imposed on making the claim but rather governed the calculation of relief once claimed. The legislative distinction between claiming relief and calculating its effect was further evidenced by the structure of the SDLT return, which separated these concepts into different questions.

HMRC's characterisation of Schedule 6B as a "self-contained code" for the claim process was rejected. The Tribunal confirmed that an identical mistake regarding applicable rates could have been made by a taxpayer not claiming any relief, and HMRC acknowledged they would not typically challenge overpayment relief in such circumstances—a position consistent with the Tribunal's purposive construction.

This decision provides important clarification on the scope of exclusions from SDLT overpayment relief, distinguishing between mistakes in making claims and errors in the subsequent mechanical process of calculating liability. The emphasis on purposive statutory construction and the actual requirements for valid claims may have broader implications for taxpayers seeking overpayment relief where computational errors have occurred.

Copyright & permissions