Has my SDLT refund claim been submitted to HMRC?

Introduction

People often want to know what stage a Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) reclaim or refund case has reached, especially after signing authority documents and returning them to their adviser. A common practical question is whether the signed paperwork was acceptable and whether the claim has actually been sent to HMRC.

This article explains that situation in general terms. It also outlines what signed authority documents are for, what happens when a case is submitted to HMRC, and what a taxpayer should do next if they want to check progress.

The Question

A taxpayer signed the final documents needed for an SDLT reclaim matter, but could not complete part of the process electronically. The signed paperwork was sent back to the adviser, and the taxpayer wanted to know whether the signatures were acceptable and whether the case had gone in to HMRC.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s response was straightforward. In anonymised form, he confirmed two key points:

• the signed documents had been received; and
• the case was being submitted, and then had been submitted, to HMRC.

In substance, his explanation was: “I’ve received the documents and I plan on submitting the case to HMRC later today.” He later followed up to confirm: “I sent your case to HMRC the other day.”

The practical meaning is that the adviser considered the returned documents sufficient to proceed and had moved the matter from document collection to formal submission.

The Law

SDLT is governed mainly by the Finance Act 2003. Where a taxpayer believes too much SDLT was paid, the route to correction depends on the nature of the issue and the timing.

The main statutory routes commonly considered are:

• an amendment to an SDLT return, if still within the amendment window;
• a repayment claim for overpaid tax under Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003, where applicable;
• a claim that a property was not suitable for use as a dwelling at the effective date of transaction, where the legal test is met; or
• other relief-based or technical arguments depending on the facts.

Where an agent submits a claim or correspondence on a taxpayer’s behalf, HMRC will usually expect proper authority. That is why advisers often ask clients to sign an authorisation letter and terms of engagement before the final submission is made.

If the underlying reclaim argument is based on a property being uninhabitable or not suitable for use as a dwelling, readers should note that the legal threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. The condition of the property must be seriously deficient at the effective date; ordinary disrepair, dated condition, or the need for renovation will often not be enough.

Analysis

The position can be analysed in a simple sequence.

1. The taxpayer was asked to complete final authority documents. That usually means the technical review had already reached the stage where the adviser was ready to send the case to HMRC.

2. The taxpayer returned signed documents, even though part of the process could not be completed fully electronically. In practice, that is not necessarily a problem if the adviser accepts the form of signature and the document has been properly executed for HMRC authority purposes.

3. Nick then confirmed receipt of the documents. That is important because it shows the paperwork had arrived and had been checked sufficiently for the matter to proceed.

4. He then stated that the case would be submitted later that day. That indicates the file had moved beyond pending client action.

5. He later confirmed that the case had in fact been sent to HMRC. At that point, the key practical issue is no longer whether the signatures were acceptable, but waiting for HMRC to acknowledge, review, and respond.

So, on these facts, the sensible reading is that the signatures were accepted in practice because the adviser proceeded with submission. If there had been a defect preventing submission, the taxpayer would usually have been asked to re-sign or provide corrected authority.

That does not mean the refund claim will necessarily succeed on the merits. Submission to HMRC is only the start of the decision-making process. HMRC may accept the claim, ask for more evidence, or reject it depending on the legal basis and supporting documents.

Outcome

The practical conclusion is that the signed documents were treated as sufficient for submission, and the SDLT case was sent to HMRC.

If a taxpayer is in this position, the next stage is usually to wait for HMRC’s response rather than to worry further about the signing method, unless HMRC or the adviser later raises a specific authority issue.

Practical Steps

• Keep copies of the signed authority letter, engagement terms, and any submission confirmation.
• Ask the adviser for the date of submission and whether HMRC acknowledgement has been received.
• Ask under which legal basis the reclaim was made, for example overpayment, amendment, multiple dwellings relief, mixed-use treatment, or unsuitable-for-use-as-a-dwelling.
• If the claim is based on property condition, review the evidence carefully. Photographs, survey material, contractor reports, invoices, and completion-date evidence can be important.
• Be realistic about “uninhabitable” arguments. Following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, the threshold is high.
• Monitor time limits. If HMRC asks questions or seeks further evidence, respond promptly.
• If the claim is refused, consider whether there is a review or appeal route and what deadline applies.

Conclusion

Where an adviser confirms that signed documents have been received and later says the case has been sent to HMRC, the normal conclusion is that the authority paperwork was accepted and the SDLT reclaim is now with HMRC for consideration. The remaining issue is the strength of the legal basis for the claim, not the administrative signing point.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003
• Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003
• 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.