Can you claim back Stamp Duty Land Tax on buy-to-let properties bought through a company?

Introduction

Many landlords and property investors ask whether they can reclaim Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) after buying rental properties, especially where the purchase was made through a limited company or where a further buy-to-let purchase is planned. This usually comes up when the SDLT bill feels high, particularly because company purchases of dwellings often attract the higher residential rates.

The short answer is that SDLT is not generally refundable simply because the tax was expensive or because the buyer later remortgages another property. A refund is usually only possible if the original SDLT return was wrong, an overpayment was made, or a specific relief or repayment rule applies.

The Question

A property investor says that, over the last two years, a limited company has bought two houses. The investor is now planning to remortgage a personally owned home onto a buy-to-let basis and buy another property. The expected SDLT charge on the next purchase is high, and the investor wants to know whether any of the SDLT already paid, or due to be paid, can be claimed back.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s response focused on the key point: a refund depends on there being a legal basis for it. In anonymised form, his question was essentially this: what is the reason for thinking SDLT could be reclaimed?

He highlighted two common areas that sometimes lead to a different SDLT outcome:

• whether the property was truly uninhabitable at the effective date of the transaction; and
• whether the property included non-residential elements so that mixed-use treatment might apply.

That is a sensible starting point. SDLT is transaction-specific. A buyer cannot usually reclaim SDLT across a group of purchases just because they own several properties, have bought through a company, or are now refinancing another property. The question is whether one of the completed or proposed transactions was taxed incorrectly under the SDLT rules.

The Law

SDLT is charged under the Finance Act 2003 on land transactions in England and Northern Ireland. The amount due depends on the nature of the property, the type of purchaser, and whether any relief or special rule applies.

For company purchases of residential property, the position is often more expensive than for individuals:

• companies buying dwellings are generally charged at the higher residential rates;
• the usual replacement of main residence refund rules are aimed at individuals, not companies buying investment property;
• multiple dwellings relief has been abolished for purchases with an effective date on or after 1 June 2024, subject to transitional rules; and
• mixed-use treatment may apply if the land is genuinely both residential and non-residential.

In some cases, a property may fall outside the normal residential SDLT treatment if, at the effective date, it was not suitable for use as a dwelling. However, the courts have made clear that this is a demanding test. In uninhabitable or not suitable for use cases, the condition thresholds are now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.

Where too much SDLT has been paid, an amendment or repayment claim may be possible, but it must be based on the statutory rules and made within the relevant time limits.

Analysis

The investor’s situation needs to be broken down transaction by transaction.

First, the two houses already bought by the limited company. If those were ordinary residential buy-to-let purchases, bought as dwellings by a company, the higher residential SDLT rates will usually have applied correctly. In that common scenario, there is no general right to reclaim SDLT later.

Secondly, remortgaging a personally owned house does not itself trigger SDLT. SDLT applies to acquisitions of chargeable interests in land, not to a straightforward remortgage. So if the investor is only refinancing an existing property and keeping ownership unchanged, that remortgage does not create a refund opportunity for SDLT paid on earlier purchases.

Thirdly, the planned purchase of another property may attract high SDLT, but that does not mean earlier SDLT can be reclaimed. The right question is whether the new purchase can lawfully be taxed on a different basis from the start.

There are a few situations worth checking carefully:

• If a property was genuinely mixed-use, the non-residential or mixed rates may have applied instead of residential rates.
• If a property was not suitable for use as a dwelling on the effective date, it may not have been residential property for SDLT purposes, but this is now much harder to establish after Mudan.
• If an SDLT return included a factual or legal error, an amendment or overpayment relief claim may be possible.
• If a relief was available but not claimed, it may sometimes be possible to correct that, depending on the circumstances and time limits.

What usually does not work is a broad argument that SDLT should be refunded because:

• the buyer owns several properties;
• the properties are let out;
• the purchases were made through a limited company;
• the investor is changing a home into a buy-to-let; or
• the SDLT bill feels disproportionate.

On the uninhabitable point, the courts now expect a serious level of disrepair or defect before a building will be treated as not suitable for use as a dwelling. Minor defects, dated condition, the need for refurbishment, missing fittings, or a property being unattractive to occupy will often not be enough. Following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799, the threshold is relatively high.

Outcome

In a standard limited company buy-to-let scenario, there is usually no SDLT refund available simply because several properties have been purchased or because another purchase is now planned. A remortgage of an existing property does not itself create SDLT to reclaim.

A repayment is only likely if one of the completed purchases was taxed incorrectly, for example because the property was genuinely mixed-use, a valid relief was missed, or the SDLT return otherwise overstated the tax. If the argument is that a property was uninhabitable, that will need strong evidence and must meet the now relatively high threshold confirmed in Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.

Practical Steps

1. Review each completed purchase separately. Check the SDLT return, completion statement, title documents, and property particulars.
2. Identify the basis on which SDLT was calculated. Was it treated as residential, mixed-use, or something else?
3. Check whether there were any non-residential elements, such as land or rights that could genuinely support mixed-use treatment.
4. If arguing uninhabitability, gather objective evidence from the effective date, such as surveys, photographs, contractor reports, and utility or structural evidence. Mere refurbishment needs are unlikely to be enough.
5. Check whether any relief was available and missed, and whether the time limit for amendment or repayment is still open.
6. For the planned purchase, work out the SDLT position before exchange so the transaction is structured and reported correctly from the outset.

Conclusion

You cannot normally claim back SDLT on company buy-to-let purchases just because the tax was high. The key issue is whether a specific purchase was wrongly taxed. The most realistic areas to examine are mixed-use treatment, a missed relief, or a genuine overpayment. If the argument is that the property was not suitable for use as a dwelling, the threshold is now relatively high following Amarjeet and Tajinder Mudan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799.

Legal References Used

• 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.