Non-Resident SDLT: Excluded Companies Under Second Residence Condition in FA03 Schedule

SDLT non-resident surcharge: when the second residence condition does not apply to companies

Certain property investment companies are not tested under the SDLT non-resident surcharge rule that looks at where participators are resident. This exception applies only to the specific “second residence condition” in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 9A Finance Act 2003. It does not mean those companies are automatically outside the 2% non-resident surcharge, as other SDLT residence rules may still apply.

• The exclusion applies to PAIFs, 51% subsidiaries of PAIFs, UK REITs, and companies that are members of a group UK REIT.
• If a buyer falls within one of those statutory categories, paragraph 7(3) is ignored when deciding whether the surcharge applies.
• This rule stops a look-through test based on the residence of participators or similar persons for those entities.
• You must still check all other relevant rules in Schedule 9A to see whether the company is non-UK resident for SDLT purposes.
• The key issue is whether the company meets the exact legal definitions in FA 2003 and CTA 2010, not whether it is broadly a property investment vehicle.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

SDLT non-resident surcharge: companies excluded from the second residence condition

This page explains a narrow but important point in the SDLT non-resident surcharge rules for companies. In some cases, a company can be treated as non-UK resident for the surcharge because of where its controlling participators are resident. That is sometimes called the second residence condition. But this condition does not apply to certain property investment vehicles. If a company falls within one of those excluded categories, this particular test is switched off.

What this rule is about

Schedule 9A to Finance Act 2003 contains the higher SDLT rates for certain non-resident transactions. For companies, residence is not always tested only by the company’s own tax residence status. There is also a separate rule in paragraph 7(3) that can bring a company within the non-resident surcharge by reference to the residence position of participators.

The page you have provided deals only with an exception to that separate rule. It does not say that the listed companies are automatically outside the non-resident surcharge altogether. It says only that the second residence condition does not apply to them.

That distinction matters. A company may still need to consider other residence rules in Schedule 9A. The point here is simply that this particular look-through condition is disapplied for certain types of property investment companies and REIT structures.

What the official source says

HMRC states that the second residence condition in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 9A FA 2003 does not apply to the following companies:

• a Property Authorised Investment Fund, or PAIF, as defined for the purposes of Schedule 7A FA 2003
• a body corporate that is a 51% subsidiary of a PAIF, using the meaning of 51% subsidiary in Chapter 3 of Part 24 CTA 2010
• a company UK Real Estate Investment Trust, or UK REIT, within section 524(5) CTA 2010
• a company that is a member of a group UK REIT, within section 523(5) CTA 2010

So, if the purchaser company falls within one of those categories, paragraph 7(3) is not used to decide whether the non-resident surcharge applies.

What this means in practice

In practice, this rule protects certain regulated or specially taxed property investment structures from being caught by the second residence condition.

Without this exclusion, there could be a look-through exercise into the residence position of participators or equivalent persons. For the entities listed above, HMRC says that this test is simply not part of the analysis.

This is most relevant where a company is acquiring residential property and you are checking whether the 2% non-resident SDLT surcharge applies. If the buyer is a PAIF, a qualifying PAIF subsidiary, a UK REIT, or a member of a group UK REIT, you should not apply paragraph 7(3) to that buyer.

However, that does not by itself answer the whole SDLT question. You still need to consider whether the company is non-UK resident under any other applicable rule in Schedule 9A, and whether the transaction otherwise falls within the surcharge provisions.

How to analyse it

A sensible way to approach this point is:

• Identify whether the transaction is one where the non-resident surcharge is potentially relevant.
• Confirm that the purchaser is a company or body corporate.
• Ask whether someone is trying to apply the second residence condition in paragraph 7(3) Schedule 9A FA 2003.
• If so, check whether the purchaser is one of the excluded entities listed in the legislation and HMRC material.
• If it is, stop the paragraph 7(3) analysis there. That condition does not apply.
• Then continue with any other residence or surcharge tests that may still matter.

The key legal question is not whether the company is a property investment vehicle in a broad commercial sense. The question is whether it falls within one of the specific statutory categories cross-referred to in FA 2003 and CTA 2010.

Example

Illustration: a company that is a member of a group UK REIT buys a dwelling in England. Some of the investors behind the wider structure are non-UK resident. A reader might wonder whether the company is caught by the second residence condition because of those investors.

On the source material provided, the answer is that paragraph 7(3) does not apply to a company that is a member of a group UK REIT. So that particular look-through condition is not used. But you would still need to consider any other parts of the non-resident surcharge rules that may apply to the buyer and the transaction.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The main difficulty is that this page is very narrow. It removes one condition, but it does not give the full test for whether the surcharge applies overall.

There can also be classification issues. For example:

• whether an entity is in fact a PAIF for the relevant statutory purpose
• whether a company is truly a 51% subsidiary under the corporation tax definition
• whether a company is within the statutory meaning of a UK REIT or group UK REIT member at the effective date of the transaction

These are technical status questions. The answer depends on the legislation the SDLT rules cross-refer to, not on informal descriptions or how the group is marketed.

Another possible source of confusion is assuming that exclusion from paragraph 7(3) means complete exclusion from the non-resident surcharge. The source does not say that. It says only that the second residence condition does not apply.

Key takeaways

• Some property investment companies are excluded from the second residence condition in paragraph 7(3) Schedule 9A FA 2003.
• The excluded categories are PAIFs, certain PAIF subsidiaries, UK REITs, and members of group UK REITs.
• This exclusion removes one route into the non-resident surcharge, but it does not by itself decide the whole SDLT position.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Non-Resident SDLT: Excluded Companies Under Second Residence Condition in FA03 Schedule

View all HMRC SDLT Guidance Pages Here