Backdated Lease Details and SDLT Changes for Scottish Transactions

SDLT and Backdated Scottish Leases After Tacit Relocation

This issue concerns old SDLT rules for Scottish leases where a lease carried on automatically by tacit relocation after its expiry, and the parties later signed a new lease with an earlier start date. The key point is that, for SDLT, the backdated wording does not automatically decide the tax treatment. What matters is the legal effect of the continued occupation and whether the later lease creates a new term or simply records what was already happening.

• Under Scots law, tacit relocation can mean a lease continues automatically on existing terms if the tenant stays in occupation after expiry.
• If a later lease is granted and backdated, SDLT analysis looks at the real legal position, not just the date written into the document.
• The period between the original expiry and the later signed lease may still need to be treated as occupation under the continued lease.
• A proper analysis asks when the original lease ended, whether tacit relocation arose, when the new lease was actually granted, and what rights the tenant had in the meantime.
• This was a fact-sensitive SDLT issue in Scotland, but SDLT stopped applying to Scottish land transactions from April 2015, when LBTT replaced it.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

SDLT and Scottish leases: backdated lease granted after tacit relocation

This page is about a narrow but important SDLT issue for Scottish leases. It concerns what happens when a lease has continued automatically by tacit relocation and the parties later grant a new lease that is backdated. The point matters because SDLT treatment depends on whether the later document is treated as creating a new lease term, replacing the continued occupation, or documenting what has already happened.

What this rule is about

Under Scots law, a lease can continue automatically after its original expiry by tacit relocation. Broadly, that means the tenant stays in occupation and the lease continues on the existing terms unless one of the parties has brought it to an end properly.

The SDLT question is then whether a later lease, granted after that continuation has already happened, changes the tax position if it is expressed to start earlier than the date it is actually signed. In other words, can the parties backdate the lease for SDLT purposes, and if so, what period counts as the term of the lease?

This is relevant only to SDLT in the historical Scottish context. The source itself notes that from April 2015 SDLT no longer applies to land transactions in Scotland, which are instead subject to LBTT.

What the official source says

The supplied source is only a heading and archive note. It identifies the issue as a lease term question: a backdated lease granted after a lease has continued by tacit relocation. It also makes clear that the material is archived because SDLT ceased to apply to Scottish land transactions from April 2015.

Although the extract does not include the substantive text, the heading shows the core legal problem. The issue is not simply whether a lease is backdated as a matter of drafting. The real question is how to identify the lease term for SDLT where continued occupation has already arisen under tacit relocation before the later formal lease is granted.

What this means in practice

In practice, a backdated document does not automatically rewrite the tax consequences of what has already happened on the ground. For SDLT, the important questions are usually when the effective legal arrangement arose, what rights the tenant actually had during the continued occupation, and whether the later lease is genuinely creating a new lease or merely recording an occupation that was already continuing under Scots law.

If a lease has already rolled on by tacit relocation, the tenant’s occupation during that period may not simply be ignored because the parties later sign a lease stating an earlier start date. A conveyancer or adviser would need to identify the legal basis of occupation during the interim period and then consider how the later lease interacts with it.

The practical consequence is that the stated commencement date in the later lease may not be the whole answer. SDLT analysis generally turns on substance and legal effect, not just the wording chosen later.

How to analyse it

A sensible way to analyse this kind of case is to ask the following questions.

• Was there an original Scottish lease that reached its contractual expiry date?
• Did the tenant remain in occupation after expiry?
• Did tacit relocation arise under Scots law, so that the lease continued automatically?
• When was the later lease actually granted or executed?
• What does the later lease say about its commencement date and term?
• Does the later lease appear to replace the continued tenancy, or is it trying to document the position retrospectively?
• For the period before the later grant, what was the tenant’s actual legal right to occupy: the continued lease by tacit relocation, or something else?
• Does the SDLT analysis need to focus on the actual continuation period first, and then on the effect of the later formal lease?

That framework matters because SDLT on leases depends heavily on identifying the chargeable lease term correctly. If the lease term is overstated or understated because a backdated document is taken at face value without examining tacit relocation, the tax analysis may be wrong.

Example

Illustration: a Scottish commercial lease expires on 31 December. The tenant stays in occupation and, under Scots law, the lease continues by tacit relocation. In June, the parties sign a new lease that says it began on 1 January. The SDLT question is not answered simply by reading that stated start date. You would need to consider whether the tenant was already occupying under the continued lease from January to June, and what the June document actually changed. The tax treatment may depend on the legal effect of the June grant rather than the backdated wording alone.

Why this can be difficult in practice

This area is fact-sensitive because it sits at the junction of SDLT rules and Scots property law concepts. A later lease can be drafted as if it had always been in force, but that does not necessarily determine the SDLT result. The difficult part is distinguishing between:

• a lease that truly takes effect only when granted, even if it uses an earlier commencement date;
• a lease that replaces a period of occupation already governed by tacit relocation; and
• a document that is largely evidential, recording an arrangement that had already arisen in law.

The source provided does not contain the detailed official reasoning, so it would be unsafe to state a rigid rule for every case. The key point is that tacit relocation must be considered as part of the legal analysis, and a backdated lease should not be assumed to displace that automatically for SDLT purposes.

Key takeaways

• The issue is how SDLT treats a later backdated Scottish lease where the earlier lease has already continued by tacit relocation.
• A backdated commencement date does not necessarily settle the SDLT position; the legal basis of occupation during the interim period matters.
• This is archived SDLT material only: from April 2015 Scottish land transactions moved from SDLT to LBTT.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Backdated Lease Details and SDLT Changes for Scottish Transactions

View all HMRC SDLT Guidance Pages Here