Can you reduce SDLT by apportioning part of the purchase price to contents?

Introduction

Buyers often ask whether part of the price paid for a home can be treated as payment for contents rather than for the land and building itself. This matters because Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) is charged on consideration for land transactions, not on separate payments for qualifying chattels.

The issue usually arises where a property is bought with carpets, curtains, blinds, light fittings, freestanding furniture or other items left behind by the seller. If a genuine part of the overall price was paid for those items, it may be possible to amend the SDLT return and reduce the taxable consideration. The key point is that any figure used must be realistic and supported by evidence.

The Question

A buyer purchased a high-value residential property and says the agreed price effectively included a substantial amount of contents and removable items left in the property. The items said to be included were things such as carpets, curtains, blinds, shutters, lighting and some other non-personal items, with an estimated total value of about £92,175.

The buyer had photographs and a spreadsheet showing the items and wanted to know whether the SDLT return could be amended so that the amount attributable to those contents was excluded from SDLT.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s core point was that the valuation of contents must reflect open market value, not replacement cost and not an inflated estimate based on how attractive or expensive the items originally were.

In anonymised form, his explanation was:

“HMRC’s guidance on the valuation of chattels says the valuation must reflect the open market value. There can sometimes be differing views on what open market value means, but the figure still has to be one that could realistically be justified if HMRC asks questions.”

He also explained that where the purchase was completed within the amendment window, the SDLT return could be amended without sending HMRC a detailed narrative at the outset. The practical approach he described was to file the amendment while keeping the initial submission concise, but to retain all supporting evidence in case HMRC opens an enquiry.

That is an important procedural point. An amendment may be straightforward to submit, but that does not remove the need for proper evidence. If HMRC reviews the amendment, the taxpayer must be able to show that the amount deducted really related to chargeable chattels and that the figures used were sensible.

The Law

SDLT is charged under the Finance Act 2003 on chargeable consideration for land transactions. Broadly, that means the amount given for the acquisition of the chargeable interest in land.

Where a purchase price covers both land and separate movable items, SDLT is only charged on the part attributable to the land transaction. A genuine payment for chattels can therefore fall outside SDLT.

However, the law draws a distinction between:

• fixtures, which normally form part of the land and remain within the SDLT charge; and
• chattels, which are movable items and can in principle be excluded if a real part of the consideration was paid for them.

HMRC’s SDLT manual at SDLTM04010 addresses the valuation of chattels. The broad principle is that any apportionment must be made on a just and reasonable basis and that values must reflect open market value.

That usually means second-hand sale value at the effective date of the transaction, not:

• original purchase price;
• insurance replacement value;
• new-for-old cost;
• the seller’s sentimental view of value; or
• an amount chosen simply to reduce SDLT.

Items such as fitted carpets and some removable items are often discussed in these cases, but whether something is a fixture or a chattel depends on the degree and purpose of annexation. The more permanently attached an item is, and the more it appears to have become part of the property, the harder it is to treat it as a separate chattel for SDLT purposes.

Where buyers also raise “uninhabitable” or “not suitable for use” arguments in SDLT cases, the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799. A property will not be treated as unsuitable for use as a dwelling merely because it needs work, modernisation or repair. That is a separate line of argument from contents apportionment, but it is relevant because some buyers try to combine the two.

Analysis

The correct analysis is usually as follows.

1. Identify what was actually included in the purchase.

   You need to separate out the land and building from any genuinely removable items. Carpets, curtains, freestanding white goods, freestanding furniture and some removable light fittings may potentially be chattels. Built-in appliances, fitted kitchen units, sanitaryware, central heating systems and most items fixed to the building are unlikely to qualify.

2. Decide whether there was genuinely a separate element of consideration for those items.

   It is not enough to say that the seller left items behind. The question is whether part of the agreed price can realistically be attributed to them. If the sale was simply of the house “as seen”, HMRC may scrutinise whether any later apportionment is genuine.

3. Value the qualifying items at open market value.

   This is the point Nick emphasised. Open market value is normally the price the items would fetch in a second-hand sale between unconnected parties at the time of completion. For used carpets, blinds, shutters and similar items, that figure is often much lower than replacement cost, even where the property was well presented and the items were expensive when new.

4. Check whether the evidence supports the figures.

   A spreadsheet and photographs are helpful, but they are not conclusive on their own. Better evidence may include a contemporaneous fixtures and fittings list, correspondence showing what was included, marketplace comparisons for used items, invoices showing age and specification, and a reasoned valuation methodology.

5. Consider whether the SDLT return is still within the amendment period.

   If the return is still within the statutory amendment window, the buyer may be able to amend it directly. That is a procedural advantage, but it does not change the substantive test. HMRC can still enquire into the amended return.

6. Assess the likely level of HMRC challenge.

   Large chattels deductions on high-value homes often attract scrutiny, especially where the claimed figure appears generous. A claimed contents value of around £92,000 is not impossible in principle, but it would need careful support and a realistic breakdown. In many cases, the defensible open market value will be significantly lower than an owner’s estimate based on quality or replacement cost.

In practical terms, the strongest part of this type of claim is usually the legal principle that genuine chattels are outside SDLT. The weakest part is often the valuation evidence. That is why Nick focused on open market value and keeping the evidence ready for any HMRC enquiry.

Outcome

A buyer can potentially reduce SDLT if part of the purchase price was genuinely paid for qualifying chattels rather than for the land. But the figures must be realistic, item-specific and based on open market value.

The main takeaway is this: a contents claim is not judged by what the items cost when new or by what it would cost to replace them. It is judged by what those used items were worth on the open market at the date of purchase.

If the transaction is still within the amendment period, an SDLT return may be amended. However, the buyer should expect that HMRC may ask for evidence later, especially if the deduction is substantial.

Practical Steps

1. Prepare a full item-by-item schedule.

   List each item separately and distinguish between fixtures and possible chattels.

2. Use open market values only.

   Avoid replacement cost, retail cost and broad estimates based on appearance or quality.

3. Keep supporting evidence.

   Retain photographs, the TA10 or equivalent fittings list, sale contract papers, completion statement, SDLT5, and any correspondence showing what was included in the purchase.

4. Check the amendment deadline.

   If still in time, an amendment may be possible without lengthy initial explanation, but the file should still be enquiry-ready.

5. Be cautious with fitted items.

   Items attached to the property may well be fixtures and therefore still part of the SDLT charge.

6. Do not mix this up with an “uninhabitable dwelling” argument.

   That is a different issue, and the threshold for showing a dwelling was not suitable for use is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.

Conclusion

Yes, part of a property purchase price can sometimes be excluded from SDLT if it genuinely relates to separate chattels. But the claim only stands up if the items qualify, the apportionment is just and reasonable, and the values reflect true open market value. In most cases, the success of the amendment turns less on the idea itself and more on the quality of the evidence and the realism of the figures used.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003
• HMRC Stamp Duty Land Tax Manual, SDLTM04010
• 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.