SDLT 3% (Now 5%) Surcharge Refund on Transfers of Former Homes to SPV Companies

NO VAT
Can you reclaim the 3% SDLT surcharge if you transfer your old main home to your own SPV company?
Introduction
This question often comes up where a couple buy a new home, pay the higher rates of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT), and then later want to move their former home into a property company. The key issue is whether that transfer counts as replacing a main residence for SDLT refund purposes, even if the owners still keep another buy-to-let property.
The short answer is usually yes: if the former main residence is disposed of within the allowed time, a refund of the higher rates may still be available. The fact that another investment property is still owned does not usually block the refund, provided the disposed property was the previous only or main residence.
The Question
A married couple bought a new home and paid the 3% higher rates of SDLT because, at the time of purchase, they still owned their former home. Their former home is now let out. They are considering setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) company and selling that former home to the company, with both spouses involved in the company.
They also already own a separate buy-to-let flat which has never been their main residence. They want to know whether transferring the former home to the company would allow them to reclaim the higher rates paid on the purchase of the new home, or whether HMRC would treat this as effectively selling the property to themselves so that the surcharge refund is not available.
Nick’s Explanation
Nick’s core point was that transferring the former main residence to a limited company is, in SDLT terms, a disposal of that dwelling by the individuals. He explained the position in substance as follows:
“If you transfer your previous main dwelling to a limited company, you are disposing of that property to the company. If that disposal takes place within the relevant time limit after buying the new home, you can usually reclaim the higher rates. The existence of other properties is not the deciding factor for the refund in this situation. What matters is whether you have disposed of your previous main dwelling within the required period and claimed in time.”
He also clarified an important point that often causes confusion: where the refund rules apply because a previous main residence is replaced, ownership of other buy-to-let properties does not in itself prevent the refund.
The Law
The higher rates of SDLT for additional dwellings are contained in Schedule 4ZA to the Finance Act 2003.
In broad terms:
- Higher rates apply when a purchaser buys a dwelling and, at the end of the day of the transaction, owns an interest in another dwelling, unless a replacement of main residence exception applies.
- If the buyer has not yet disposed of their previous only or main residence when buying the new home, the higher rates may be payable upfront.
- If that previous only or main residence is later disposed of within the permitted period, the buyer may claim a refund of the higher rates.
The replacement of main residence rules focus on whether the dwelling disposed of was the purchaser’s previous only or main residence. They do not require the purchaser to have disposed of every other property they own.
For most transactions, the relevant disposal must take place within three years of the purchase of the new main residence. The refund claim must also be made within the statutory time limit, usually within 12 months of the sale of the previous main residence, subject to the detailed filing rules in force at the time.
Where a property is transferred to a company, the company is a separate legal person. A sale by individuals to their own company is still generally a disposal by the individuals and an acquisition by the company. That is why, in principle, such a transfer can satisfy the “disposal” requirement for the refund rules.
Analysis
It helps to work through the SDLT refund test step by step.
The couple bought a new home as their new main residence.
At that time, they still owned their former main residence, so the higher rates were payable on the new purchase.
They also owned a separate buy-to-let flat. That meant they owned more than one dwelling, but that fact alone does not decide the refund question.
The next question is whether they later dispose of their previous only or main residence within three years of buying the new home.
If they sell that former main residence to an SPV company, that is generally a disposal for SDLT purposes because the company is legally separate from them.
If the disposal is completed within the three-year window, the replacement of main residence refund mechanism can apply.
The fact that they still own the buy-to-let flat does not normally stop the refund, because the legislation asks whether the previous main residence has been disposed of, not whether every additional dwelling has been sold.
So the earlier concern, namely that HMRC might say they are “buying from themselves”, does not usually reflect the legal position. A company is distinct from its shareholders and directors. A transfer to the company is not ignored just because the same people control the company.
That said, there are some practical and tax points beyond the narrow refund issue:
- The company’s purchase of the property will itself usually attract SDLT, and companies buying dwellings are commonly subject to the higher rates.
- Market value rules may be relevant where connected parties are involved.
- There may also be Capital Gains Tax implications on the transfer to the company.
- Mortgage lender requirements and company structuring issues also need checking.
Those points do not usually change the answer on the refund question itself, but they are important before proceeding.
Outcome
If a couple buy a new main home, pay the higher rates because they still own their old main home, and then sell that old main home to their own SPV company within three years, they can usually claim a refund of the 3% higher rates paid on the new home purchase.
The fact that they continue to own a separate buy-to-let property does not usually prevent the refund, because the refund depends on disposal of the previous main residence, not disposal of all other dwellings.
Practical Steps
Confirm that the property being transferred to the company was genuinely the previous only or main residence before the new home was bought.
Check the completion date of the new home purchase and make sure the disposal of the former main residence takes place within three years of that date.
Submit the SDLT refund claim within the applicable deadline, usually within 12 months of the disposal of the former main residence.
Keep evidence showing occupation history, the date the new home was acquired, and the date the former main residence was transferred.
Take advice on the company purchase itself, because the SPV may face its own SDLT charge and the transfer may trigger Capital Gains Tax or other consequences.
If any part of the argument depends on a property being uninhabitable or not suitable for use as a dwelling, be aware that the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.
Conclusion
In a case like this, transferring the former main residence to an SPV company can usually count as a disposal for SDLT refund purposes. If that disposal happens within the statutory time limit, the higher rates paid on the new home can usually be reclaimed, even if another buy-to-let property is still owned.
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.





