Understanding Group Tax Relief and Recovery Under Paragraph 3 Clawback Rules

When SDLT Group Relief Can Be Clawed Back After Three Years

SDLT group relief on transfers within a corporate group can be withdrawn if the buyer company later leaves the group. This can happen not only within three years of the original transfer, but also after that period if the exit takes place under arrangements made before the three years ended. The rules on claiming the relief and the rules on clawing it back are separate, so a valid claim can still face a later clawback.

• Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 deals with whether the original claim for group relief is allowed, while paragraph 3 deals with recovering the tax later.
• If the buyer company leaves the group within three years of the effective date, the clawback rules may apply directly.
• If the company leaves after three years, relief may still be withdrawn if arrangements for that exit were made before the end of the three-year period.
• Whether earlier arrangements existed is a factual question and may depend on evidence such as negotiations, board decisions, heads of terms, options, or other documented steps.
• HMRC says it will not assume arrangements existed just because the company left shortly after the three-year deadline; the actual facts must support that view.
• Where a clawback may arise, the parties should consider whether a return under section 81 of Finance Act 2003 is required.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

When group relief can be clawed back because of arrangements made within the three-year period

This page explains an important point about SDLT group relief under Schedule 7 to Finance Act 2003. The issue is whether relief can later be withdrawn if a company leaves the group within three years, or leaves after three years under arrangements made earlier. The source material makes clear that the rules on claiming group relief and the rules on clawing it back are separate, even though both refer to “arrangements”.

What this rule is about

Group relief can reduce or remove SDLT on certain transfers between companies in the same group. But that relief is not always final. Schedule 7 contains clawback rules which can require the tax to be paid later if the company that acquired the property stops being in the same group within a set period.

The specific issue here is how paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 works where there are “arrangements” for a company to leave the group. This matters because a company may leave the group after the normal three-year period has ended, but the relief can still be withdrawn if the departure happens under arrangements made before the end of that period.

The source also addresses a common misunderstanding. The fact that there are arrangements which may later trigger, or avoid, a clawback does not itself determine whether the original group relief claim was valid. The claim and the later clawback are separate legal questions.

What the official source says

The official material says that paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 is independent of paragraph 2.

In practical terms:

• Paragraph 2 deals with whether the original claim to group relief is admissible.
• Paragraph 3 deals with recovery of the tax after relief has been given.

So, when HMRC enquires into a claim, the question is whether the claim satisfies the statutory conditions for relief. It is not enough to say that planned arrangements would later lead to a clawback, or would be exempt from clawback, unless paragraph 2 itself makes that relevant.

The source then focuses on paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii). That provision says that relief can be recovered where the company is transferred out of the group after the end of the three-year period, if that transfer happens under arrangements made before the end of the period.

The source also notes that “arrangements” in paragraph 3(4) has the same definition as in paragraph 2.

If there is a transfer outside the group, the companies involved must consider whether they need to make a return under section 81 FA 2003 to account for the withdrawal of relief. If the transfer happens after the end of the three years, they still need to consider whether arrangements for that transfer were already in place during the three-year period.

HMRC says it will not simply assume that a transfer shortly after the end of the three years must have been planned during that period. It says it will only argue that a recovery return should have been made where the facts indicate that such arrangements existed.

What this means in practice

There are two separate stages to analyse.

First, was the original intra-group transfer eligible for group relief when it happened? That is a question under the relief provisions themselves.

Second, even if the relief was validly claimed, has a later event triggered a clawback? That is a separate question under paragraph 3.

This distinction matters because people sometimes try to collapse the two questions into one. For example, they may argue that because there was always an intention to sell the company later, the original relief claim must fail automatically. The source does not support that broad approach. The claim must be tested against the statutory rules for claiming relief. The later clawback must be tested separately under paragraph 3.

The practical consequence is that a company cannot stop its analysis once it sees that the three-year period has expired. If the company leaves the group after that date, it must still ask whether the exit took place under arrangements made before the end of the three years. If it did, a clawback may still arise.

Equally, a departure just after the three-year anniversary does not, by itself, prove that there were earlier arrangements. Timing may raise a question, but the answer depends on the facts.

How to analyse it

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

• What was the effective date of the original land transaction?
• When does the three-year recovery period end?
• Did the purchaser company cease to be a member of the same group?
• If so, did that happen within the three-year period, or only after it?
• If it happened after the three-year period, were there arrangements made before the end of that period for the company to leave the group?
• What evidence exists about those arrangements? For example, board decisions, sale negotiations, heads of terms, option arrangements, binding commitments, or other documented steps.
• If the facts point to a clawback, has a return under section 81 FA 2003 been considered and, where required, made?

The key factual question in a post-three-year exit case is not simply whether an exit later happened. It is whether that exit occurred under arrangements that were already in place before the end of the recovery period.

Example

A subsidiary receives land from another company in the same group and group relief is claimed. The effective date of that transfer is 1 June 2023.

If the subsidiary is sold out of the group on 1 May 2026, that is within three years, so the clawback rules are directly in point.

If instead the sale completes on 15 June 2026, that is after the three-year period. Relief is not automatically safe. The group must still ask whether, before 1 June 2026, there were arrangements for that sale. If negotiations only began after that date, the answer may be no. If a sale process, agreement, or settled plan was already in place before that date, paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii) may still bring about a clawback.

This is only an illustration. The actual outcome depends on the detailed facts and on whether the earlier steps amount to “arrangements” within the statutory meaning.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The difficult part is usually deciding whether “arrangements” existed before the end of the three-year period.

The source does not lay down a mechanical test. It says that a proper consideration of all the circumstances is required. That means this is often a fact-sensitive exercise.

Possible areas of difficulty include:

• distinguishing a firm plan from early-stage discussions
• working out whether informal understandings are enough
• deciding whether steps taken before the deadline were really directed at the later exit
• dealing with cases where the final transaction differs from what was first discussed

The source is also careful not to create a presumption based on timing alone. A transfer shortly after the end of the three years may look suspicious, but HMRC says it will not assume that earlier arrangements existed for that reason alone. Equally, taxpayers cannot rely on the mere fact that completion happened after three years if the evidence shows the exit was already arranged earlier.

Key takeaways

• The validity of the original group relief claim and the later clawback rules are separate legal questions.
• Group relief can be clawed back even after the three-year period if the company leaves the group under arrangements made before that period ended.
• Whether earlier “arrangements” existed is a factual question that requires looking at all the circumstances, not just the date of the later transfer.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Understanding Group Tax Relief and Recovery Under Paragraph 3 Clawback Rules

View all HMRC SDLT Guidance Pages Here