Charities Relief: Examples of Stamp Duty Land Tax Relief for Charitable Trusts

SDLT Charities Relief When Part of the Property Will Be Sold

A charity can still claim SDLT charities relief on a full property purchase even if it plans from the start to sell part of what it buys, as long as it intends to keep the greater part of the land by value. If part is later sold and clawback applies, the tax is brought back only on the part sold, not on the whole original purchase.

• The “greater part” test is based on monetary value, not physical size, area or floorspace.
• Relief may still apply where a charity buys a larger site or building and intends to retain the part worth more than 50% of the total value.
• If part of the property is later disposed of, any clawback is limited to the share of the original price attributable to that part.
• The SDLT rate used for clawback is the rate linked to the total original consideration, not a separate rate for the part sold.
• Careful valuation and clear evidence of the charity’s intention at the time of purchase are important in applying the rule correctly.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

Charities relief where a charity keeps the greater part of the land

This page explains how SDLT charities relief can still apply when a charity buys land or buildings but plans to dispose of part of what it acquires. The key point in the source material is that relief may still be available if the charity keeps the greater part of the land, and if part is later disposed of, any clawback is limited to that part rather than the whole purchase.

What this rule is about

Charities relief is a relief from SDLT for certain acquisitions by charities or charitable trusts. The source material deals with a specific situation: a charity acquires a larger property or site and, from the outset, intends to sell off part of it.

The issue is whether that intention prevents relief. The official examples show that it does not necessarily do so. Relief can still be available if the charity intends to hold the greater part of the land acquired.

The examples also deal with what happens if there is a later clawback. They show that the charge back is only on the part that has been disposed of, not on the whole original purchase.

What the official source says

The source gives two main points.

First, when deciding whether the charity intends to hold the greater part of the land, the comparison is based on the monetary value of the parts of the land, not simply physical size or surface area.

In the office block example, the charity buys a five-storey building and intends to dispose of the top three floors. Even though those three floors are more than half the floorspace, relief is still available because the ground and first floors, which the charity intends to keep, represent 55% of the total value. So the charity is treated as keeping the greater part.

Second, if relief is later clawed back because part is disposed of, the clawback applies only to the proportion of the original purchase attributable to the part disposed of.

In the housing development example, the charity buys 10 equal units for £1 million and intends to sell three. It initially gets full charities relief on the whole purchase. When the three units are sold, tax is clawed back only on the £300,000 attributable to those three units. The rate used is the rate that applied by reference to the whole original consideration.

What this means in practice

The practical effect is that a charity is not automatically denied relief just because it plans to sell part of what it buys. What matters is whether, at the time of acquisition, it intends to retain the greater part of the land.

The source makes clear that this is a value-based test. A smaller physical part of a site may be worth more than a larger physical part, or vice versa. So a floor-by-floor or acreage comparison may be misleading.

This matters particularly where:

• a building has parts with very different values
• a development site contains plots of unequal worth
• the charity intends to retain the core operational part but sell surplus or less valuable parts

The source also shows that the SDLT position can change later if part is disposed of in a way that triggers clawback. But the charge back is proportionate. It is not an all-or-nothing loss of relief on the entire transaction.

How to analyse it

A sensible way to approach this issue is to ask the following questions.

• What exactly was acquired in the original land transaction?
• At the time of acquisition, what part did the charity intend to keep and what part did it intend to dispose of?
• How should the different parts be valued for this purpose?
• Does the part the charity intends to retain represent more than half of the total monetary value of what was acquired?
• If part is later disposed of, what proportion of the original consideration is properly attributable to that part?
• What SDLT rate applied by reference to the original total consideration?

The source material points strongly to an apportionment exercise based on value. That means the figures used should reflect the value of the relevant parts of the property, not just a rough physical split.

For clawback purposes, the source also indicates two separate steps:

• identify the part disposed of and apportion the original consideration to it
• apply the SDLT rate appropriate to the whole original consideration to that apportioned amount

Example

Illustration: a charity buys a mixed-use site for £2 million. It plans from the outset to retain the main building and courtyard, but to sell a detached parcel at the edge of the site. The retained part is worth £1.2 million and the parcel to be sold is worth £800,000.

On the approach shown in the source, the charity intends to hold the greater part because it is keeping the part worth 60% of the total value. Relief may therefore be available on the full acquisition at the outset.

If the detached parcel is later sold and clawback applies, the tax brought back into charge would be calculated only by reference to the £800,000 proportion attributable to that parcel, using the rate appropriate to the original £2 million consideration.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The main difficulty is valuation. The source says the greater-part test turns on monetary value, but in real transactions the value of separate floors, units, plots, airspace, access rights, or shared areas may not be obvious.

Another practical difficulty is defining the relevant “part” of the land. In some transactions, the charity may intend to dispose of only part of a building, part of a title, or units created out of a larger site. Working out the correct apportionment may require careful analysis of what was bought and what was later sold.

Timing can also matter. The source examples focus on the charity’s intention at the time of acquisition. Evidence of that intention may be important if the position is later questioned.

Finally, the clawback example shows that the rate is determined by reference to the whole original consideration, not by treating the disposed part as if it had been bought separately. That can produce a higher amount of tax than some readers might expect.

Key takeaways

• For this charities relief rule, the “greater part” is judged by value, not simply by area or floorspace.
• A charity can obtain relief on the full purchase even if it intends to dispose of part, provided it intends to keep the greater part of the land.
• If clawback applies later, it is limited to the value attributable to the part disposed of, using the SDLT rate linked to the original total consideration.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Charities Relief: Examples of Stamp Duty Land Tax Relief for Charitable Trusts

View all HMRC SDLT Guidance Pages Here