Group Relief Restrictions: No Relief for Buyer-Seller Control Transfer Arrangements

When group relief for LTT is blocked

Group relief for Land Transaction Tax can be refused even where land is transferred between companies in the same group. The main issue is whether, at the effective date, there are already arrangements for the buyer to be sold or leave the group, or for a non-group person to provide or receive the consideration as part of a wider deal.

• Relief is not available if there are arrangements for someone to gain control of the buyer but not the seller.
• Relief can also be denied if the buyer and seller cease, or could cease, to be in the same group under existing arrangements.
• A non-group person providing or receiving all or part of the consideration, directly or indirectly, can block relief.
• The test looks at what arrangements exist at the effective date, even if they are never carried out.
• Options and similar rights can count as arrangements if they could lead to a control change or group exit.
• Normal third-party borrowing by the buyer, such as a bank mortgage used to fund the price, does not by itself stop relief.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

When group relief for LTT is blocked by pre-arranged exits, control changes, or outside consideration

This page explains an important limit on group relief for Land Transaction Tax. Even if a property transfer is between companies in the same group, relief can be denied if there are arrangements in place at the effective date that point to the buyer leaving the group, a third party obtaining control of the buyer, or a non-group person providing or receiving the consideration. The rule is aimed at cases where the intra-group transfer is linked to a wider transaction involving outsiders.

What this rule is about

Group relief is intended to remove LTT charges on genuine transfers of land within a corporate group. But the relief is restricted where the transfer is part of a wider set of arrangements that would, or could, take the buyer outside the group or involve outsiders in the value passing under the transaction.

The underlying concern is straightforward. If land is moved within a group just before the buyer is sold, or just before the group structure changes, or where a non-group person is effectively funding or receiving the price, the transfer may no longer be treated as a normal internal reorganisation for relief purposes.

What the official source says

The official material identifies three situations where group relief is not available to the buyer:

• there are arrangements for a person, or persons, to obtain control of the buyer but not the seller;
• there are arrangements under which the buyer and seller cease to be members of the same group;
• there are arrangements involving the consideration for the transaction under which a non-group company or other person is to provide or receive all or part of that consideration.

For the first restriction, it is enough that the arrangements exist at the effective date of the land transaction, or that options or similar rights exist at that date to bring those arrangements into being. The arrangements must be such that a person could obtain control of the buyer on or after the effective date. The restriction applies even if the arrangements are never actually carried out.

For the second restriction, relief is denied where, in connection with or in pursuance of arrangements, the buyer ceases, or could cease, to be in the same group as the seller. The source explains this by reference to the buyer ceasing, or potentially ceasing, to be a 75% subsidiary of the seller or of a common parent.

For the third restriction, relief is denied if, at the effective date, a non-group company or other person is to provide or receive all or part of the consideration in connection with, or in pursuance of, arrangements. This applies whether the provision or receipt is direct or indirect.

The source also makes clear that not every external financing arrangement is caught. Its example says that where the buyer borrows from a lender under a mortgage secured on the property and uses those funds as consideration for the transfer, group relief is available.

What this means in practice

The key question is not just whether the buyer and seller are in the same group on the transfer date. You must also ask whether there is a wider deal already in place.

If, at the effective date, there is an agreement for the buyer company to be sold to a third party, that will usually stop group relief if the seller is not being sold as well. The source gives exactly that outcome: the buyer and seller are in the same group on the day of transfer, but relief is still denied because there is already an agreement under which an outsider will obtain control of the buyer only.

Similarly, if there are arrangements under which the buyer may leave the seller’s group, relief can fail even before the buyer has actually left. The rule is framed widely enough to catch cases where the buyer ceases, or could cease, to be in the same group.

The consideration rule is also broader than a simple question of who pays the seller directly. It can apply where a non-group person is involved indirectly in providing or receiving value under the arrangements. But ordinary third-party borrowing by the buyer is not automatically fatal. On the source material, a mortgage used by the buyer to fund the transfer does not by itself prevent relief.

How to analyse it

A practical way to approach the rule is to work through these questions at the effective date of the transaction:

• Are the buyer and seller in the same group at that date under the group relief conditions?
• Is there any agreement, option, understanding, or wider transaction under which someone could obtain control of the buyer but not the seller?
• Is there any arrangement under which the buyer ceases, or might cease, to remain in the same group as the seller?
• Is any non-group person due to provide or receive any part of the consideration, directly or indirectly, under the arrangements?
• If outside funding is involved, is it simply borrowing by the buyer, or is the outsider actually providing or receiving consideration in the sense targeted by the rule?

It is important to focus on what arrangements are already in existence at the effective date. The source does not require the control change or group exit actually to happen. The existence of arrangements that could produce that result may be enough.

Example

Illustration: Parent company A Ltd owns Subsidiary B Ltd. A Ltd transfers land to B Ltd. On the transfer date, B Ltd is still wholly owned within the group, so the ordinary group relationship exists.

But if, on that same date, there is already an agreement for an outside company C Ltd to buy the shares in B Ltd, relief is denied. That is because C Ltd could obtain control of the buyer, B Ltd, but not of the seller, A Ltd.

By contrast, if B Ltd simply borrows from a bank and uses the loan to fund the transfer price, the source indicates that group relief can still be available. The bank is acting as lender, not as a person whose involvement in the consideration automatically triggers the restriction.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The difficult part is often deciding what counts as arrangements and whether they exist at the effective date. Formal contracts are the clearest case, but the source also refers to options and similar rights. In practice, the analysis may turn on how far negotiations have progressed and whether legally meaningful steps have already been taken.

Another difficult area is the consideration rule. The source says it applies where a non-group person provides or receives consideration directly or indirectly, but it also gives an example where third-party mortgage finance does not block relief. That means not every outsider’s involvement in the funding chain is caught. The factual question is whether the outsider is merely lending money to the buyer, or whether under the arrangements the outsider is effectively part of the consideration flow in the way the rule is aimed at.

The rule about the buyer ceasing, or potentially ceasing, to be in the same group can also be fact-sensitive. The source uses broad language: relief is denied where the buyer ceases, or could cease, to be in the same group in connection with arrangements. That can require careful analysis of steps in a wider reorganisation or sale process.

Key takeaways

• Being in the same group on the transfer date is not enough if wider arrangements already exist.
• Group relief can be denied where the buyer is to be sold, may leave the group, or where a non-group person is involved in the consideration under the arrangements.
• Ordinary third-party mortgage funding by the buyer does not, on the source material, automatically prevent relief.

This page was last updated on 24 March 2026

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: Group Relief Restrictions: No Relief for Buyer-Seller Control Transfer Arrangements

View all WRA LTT Guidance Pages Here