Can HMRC reject an SDLT Multiple Dwellings Relief amendment because one joint purchaser did not sign?

Introduction

A common SDLT dispute arises where a property was bought by joint purchasers, an amendment or relief claim was later submitted, and HMRC then argues that the claim was invalid because only one purchaser signed or authorised it. Readers usually search for this issue when HMRC has already paid a repayment and then tries to recover it, or when an appeal has been disrupted by a late procedural point.

The key question is whether the SDLT rules really require every joint purchaser to physically sign an amendment, or whether one purchaser or an authorised agent can act for both. In the scenario considered here, the argument concerns a Multiple Dwellings Relief claim and HMRC’s reliance on section 103 Finance Act 2003.

The Question

Two individuals jointly bought a property and later made an SDLT amendment claiming Multiple Dwellings Relief. The amendment was submitted through an adviser acting on their behalf. HMRC initially accepted the amendment and issued a repayment.

Later, HMRC argued that the amendment was invalid because one of the joint purchasers had not physically signed the original claim or amendment. HMRC then sought repayment of the refunded SDLT and raised the point shortly before a tribunal hearing, leading to procedural difficulty.

The issue is whether an SDLT amendment or MDR claim made for joint purchasers is invalid merely because only one purchaser signed, even though both were named, both were joint purchasers, and an agent acted for them.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s response to the draft letter was brief but positive: “Nice letter. Let’s see what HMRC come back with.”

The substance of the drafted argument was that HMRC’s position may be too formalistic. In summary, the reasoning was:

• section 103 Finance Act 2003 does not expressly say that every joint purchaser must physically sign an amendment;
• the wording “done by or in relation to all of them” may allow one purchaser or an authorised agent to act on behalf of both;
• Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 supports the practical reality that SDLT returns and amendments are commonly made through agents;
• HMRC’s own systems and long-standing SDLT practice do not usually depend on obtaining separate physical signatures from each joint purchaser for every filing step;
• where HMRC has already processed the amendment and paid the repayment, it may be harder for HMRC to argue later that the claim was a nullity if the substantive entitlement existed.

The draft also relied on a broader “substance over form” argument: if both purchasers were in fact parties to the transaction, both stood behind the claim, and the amendment was made on their behalf, a purely technical objection may not be enough to defeat the relief unless the legislation clearly requires strict compliance.

The Law

The main statutory provision discussed is section 103 Finance Act 2003, which applies where there are joint purchasers. In broad terms:

• section 103(2)(a) says that any obligation of the purchaser under Part 4 FA 2003 is an obligation of the purchasers jointly but may be discharged by any of them;
• section 103(2)(b) says that anything required or authorised to be done in relation to the purchaser must be done by or in relation to all of them;
• section 103(2)(c) makes liabilities joint and several.

The amendment power is found in Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003. Paragraph 6(1) provides that the purchaser may amend a land transaction return by notice to HMRC, subject to the statutory time limits and conditions.

In practice, SDLT returns and amendments are often made by conveyancers or tax agents. That does not by itself answer every authorisation question, but it is relevant to how the legislation works in the real world.

The draft letter also referred to HMRC v Ridgway [2024] UKUT 36 (TCC). That case is a public authority and can properly be cited. It concerned the proper approach to SDLT and MDR issues, including the question of whether a building is suitable for use as a dwelling. It is important, however, to use Ridgway with care. It is stronger on substantive SDLT analysis than on proving that any particular procedural defect can always be ignored.

The draft also referred to Bayfine UK v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 304 for a substance-over-form point. Again, that can support a general interpretive approach, but the weight of any analogy will depend on the precise statutory requirement in issue.

Where a case turns on whether a building was uninhabitable or not suitable for use as a dwelling, readers should note that the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. A property does not fail the dwelling test just because it needs repair, modernisation, or even significant work. The condition must be serious enough to take it outside suitability for use as a dwelling on the facts.

Analysis

The first step is to separate two different issues:

• whether the purchasers were substantively entitled to MDR; and
• whether the amendment or claim was procedurally valid.

HMRC may accept, deny, or avoid the substantive MDR issue and instead attack the amendment on procedural grounds. That appears to be what happened here.

The argument in favour of validity runs as follows.

1. There were joint purchasers, so section 103 applies.
2. Section 103(2)(a) expressly allows obligations to be discharged by any one of the joint purchasers.
3. Section 103(2)(b) requires things to be done “by or in relation to all of them”, but does not expressly say that each joint purchaser must personally sign every amendment.
4. If an authorised agent filed an amendment on behalf of the joint purchasers, and the amendment related to both purchasers, there is a respectable argument that the statutory requirement was met.
5. If HMRC dealt with both purchasers during the enquiry or review process, that may support the factual case that the amendment was being made for both of them.
6. HMRC’s prior acceptance of the amendment and repayment is not conclusive, but it may help show that the filing was treated administratively as valid at the time.

That said, there are limits to the argument.

First, HMRC may say that an amendment by one joint purchaser is only valid if that purchaser had actual authority to act for the other, or if the agent was properly authorised by both. If the evidence of authority is weak, HMRC may argue that section 103(2)(b) was not satisfied.

Second, the fact that HMRC initially processed and repaid the claim does not necessarily stop HMRC from later correcting what it says was an invalid amendment. Administrative acceptance is helpful evidence, but not always a complete legal answer.

Third, legitimate expectation arguments against HMRC are usually difficult. Public law fairness points can sometimes assist, especially where HMRC changes position late or behaves inconsistently, but they do not automatically override the statute.

Fourth, Ridgway should not be overstated. It supports a practical and substantive approach to SDLT analysis, but it is not a direct authority that every missing signature defect is legally irrelevant.

So the strength of the taxpayer’s position will usually depend on evidence such as:

• whether both purchasers were named in the amendment or supporting documents;
• whether the adviser had authority from both, expressly or by implication;
• whether HMRC corresponded with both purchasers as if the claim was joint;
• whether one purchaser knew about, approved, or benefited from the amendment;
• whether HMRC raised the point only very late in the process.

If the underlying MDR entitlement itself depends on whether part of the property was a separate dwelling, or whether a building was unsuitable for use as a dwelling, that is a separate substantive issue which still has to be proved. In any uninhabitable or not suitable for use case, the threshold is now relatively high after Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.

Outcome

A missing physical signature from one joint purchaser does not automatically mean an SDLT amendment or MDR claim is invalid. There is a credible legal argument that, under section 103 Finance Act 2003, an amendment can be made for joint purchasers by one of them or by an authorised agent acting in relation to both.

However, the result will depend heavily on the facts and evidence of authority. The taxpayer’s case is stronger where both purchasers were clearly part of the claim, the agent acted for both, HMRC dealt with the matter as a joint claim, and the objection was raised only at a very late stage.

Practical Steps

If you are in this position, it is sensible to gather and review the following:

• the original SDLT return and any amendment submitted;
• engagement letters, authorities, or emails showing the adviser acted for both purchasers;
• correspondence showing HMRC communicated with both purchasers or treated the claim as joint;
• any repayment confirmation or HMRC decision letters;
• the tribunal timetable, withdrawal notice, and any reinstatement deadline if proceedings are ongoing.

You should then assess three separate questions:

1. Was there substantive entitlement to MDR on the facts?
2. Was the amendment validly made under section 103 and Schedule 10 FA 2003?
3. Did HMRC act procedurally fairly in the way it raised the point?

If litigation is underway, the evidence of authority and HMRC’s own conduct may be just as important as the legal wording. If the dispute also involves whether a building was a dwelling or was unsuitable for use as one, review the condition evidence carefully in light of Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, because the threshold is now demanding.

Conclusion

HMRC cannot simply assume that an MDR amendment fails because one joint purchaser did not physically sign it. The legislation does not clearly impose that narrow requirement, and there is a real argument that action by one purchaser or an authorised agent can be enough if it was done for both. But success will turn on the evidence, the wording of the documents, and the exact basis on which HMRC challenges the claim.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003, section 103
• Finance Act 2003, Schedule 10, paragraph 6
• HMRC v Ridgway [2024] UKUT 36 (TCC)
• Bayfine UK v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 304
• Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

This page was last updated on 22 March 2026.

See all questions and answers categorized in this sitemap. Or use Google site search below.