Can HMRC extend the SDLT refund time limit because of bereavement, illness or other unforeseen circumstances?

Introduction

People often ask whether HMRC can allow a late Stamp Duty Land Tax refund claim where the delay was caused by serious personal difficulties such as bereavement, ill health, family pressures or disruption during the Covid period. This usually arises in connection with the higher rates for additional dwellings, where a buyer later sells their previous main residence and then seeks a refund.

The short answer is that these claims are governed by strict statutory time limits. Personal hardship may explain why a claim was late, but that does not usually give HMRC a legal power to accept it outside the deadline.

The Question

A homeowner made an SDLT refund application after selling a previous main residence, but HMRC rejected it as out of time. The homeowner then wrote to HMRC explaining that the delay happened during a period of severe personal difficulty, including multiple bereavements, health problems, work disruption, family responsibilities and difficulties managing a building project. The homeowner wanted to know whether those circumstances could justify a reassessment of the rejected refund claim, and whether there was any route of appeal if HMRC maintained its decision.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s explanation, in substance, was that a sympathetic personal history does not by itself create a legal right to a late SDLT refund. The key issue is whether the legislation gives HMRC any discretion to extend the deadline. If the statutory time limit has expired, HMRC will usually say that it has no power to repay the tax.

The anonymised thrust of the advice can be summarised like this:

• HMRC may reconsider correspondence, but it cannot simply ignore the statutory wording because the circumstances were difficult.
• The question is not whether the delay was understandable. The question is whether the legislation permits a late claim.
• In SDLT matters, some decisions carry review and appeal rights, but where the legislation imposes a hard deadline for making a repayment claim, the tribunal cannot usually rewrite the statute on fairness grounds.
• If HMRC’s letter says there is no right of appeal, that often reflects the structure of the particular repayment regime rather than a judgment on the merits of the personal circumstances.

The Law

The relevant refund commonly arises under the higher rates for additional dwellings in Schedule 4ZA to the Finance Act 2003. Broadly, where a buyer pays the higher rates because they still own a previous home on the purchase date, a refund may later be available if the previous only or main residence is disposed of within the permitted period and the statutory conditions are met.

The claim must also be made within the statutory time limit. In practice, this is a formal legislative requirement, not just an HMRC administrative preference. If the claim is made late, HMRC will usually refuse it on the basis that the legal conditions for repayment have not been satisfied.

For SDLT generally, appeal rights exist only where Parliament has provided them. A person cannot insist on an appeal simply because a decision feels unfair. The First-tier Tribunal can determine matters that fall within its statutory jurisdiction, but it cannot create a free-standing discretion to disapply a time limit that the legislation treats as mandatory.

Analysis

The issue can be analysed in four steps.

1. First, identify the type of refund being claimed. In this sort of case, it is usually a refund of the 3% higher rates paid on the purchase of a replacement home before the old home was sold.

2. Second, check whether the substantive conditions were met. For example, was the former main residence sold within the period allowed by Schedule 4ZA, and was the new property intended to replace it as the buyer’s only or main residence?

3. Third, check the claim deadline itself. Even if the disposal and replacement conditions were met, the refund claim still has to be made within the statutory period. This is where many cases fail.

4. Fourth, ask whether the legislation gives HMRC any power to extend the deadline because of exceptional personal circumstances. In these SDLT refund cases, the answer is generally no. That means bereavement, illness, stress, poor advice, practical disruption and project-management problems may be very real and very serious, but they do not usually alter the legal position.

That is why a letter setting out difficult life events may be morally compelling but still fail legally. HMRC officers must apply the legislation as enacted. Unless there is a specific statutory gateway for late claims, they cannot approve repayment simply because the explanation is genuine and compassionate.

If a reader is considering whether a property was uninhabitable or not suitable for use as a dwelling at the effective date of transaction, the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. That case reinforces that the test is demanding. Ordinary disrepair, inconvenience, or the need for works will often not be enough.

Outcome

The practical conclusion is that serious personal circumstances do not usually allow HMRC to extend the statutory deadline for an SDLT refund claim. If the claim was made outside the period laid down by the Finance Act 2003, HMRC is likely to refuse the refund even where the delay is fully understandable.

A further letter to HMRC may still be worth sending if it clarifies the legal basis of the claim, but it is unlikely to succeed if it relies only on fairness, hardship or unforeseen personal events. Whether any review or appeal route exists depends on the exact statutory decision that HMRC made, but there is no general right to appeal simply because a refund refusal feels unjust.

Practical Steps

1. Find the exact HMRC refusal letter and identify the legal basis for the refusal.

2. Check the relevant dates carefully: the purchase date, the sale date of the previous residence, and the date the refund claim was submitted.

3. Compare those dates with the statutory conditions in Schedule 4ZA Finance Act 2003.

4. Consider whether the refusal is truly about lateness, or whether there may be another legal issue such as whether the old property was in fact the previous only or main residence.

5. If HMRC says there is no appeal right, check whether there is any reviewable decision or any other procedural route under the SDLT provisions, rather than assuming a tribunal can hear the matter on general fairness grounds.

6. If the case involves an argument that the dwelling was not suitable for use, assess that point with care in light of Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, because the threshold is now high.

7. Take specialist SDLT advice with the full paperwork before sending further representations to HMRC.

Conclusion

In SDLT refund cases, hardship and unforeseen life events may explain a delay, but they do not usually overcome a statutory deadline. The decisive question is whether the legislation permits a late claim. If it does not, HMRC and the tribunal will generally be bound by that result.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003
• Finance Act 2003, Schedule 4ZA
• 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.