Afshin Sajedi & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 297 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This consolidated appeal concerned SDLT repayment claims linked to replacement-main-residence relief for two purchases made in May–June 2017. The Tribunal held that FA 2018 Sch 11 para 16 (the commencement provision) operates by reference to the land transaction on which SDLT is computed, so para 3(7)(ba) did not apply to the New Property purchases made before 22 November 2017, and on the substantive issue the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had effected real‑world disposals of a "major interest" in their existing properties. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s closure notices upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The amendment brought into effect by a commencement provision saying it "has effect in relation to" a land transaction is to be applied by reference to the particular transaction on which SDLT is charged (here, the New Property acquisitions), so the amendment did not catch purchases made before the commencement date; and "disposes of a major interest" requires a purposive construction meaning a transaction that materially and appreciably alters the parties' real‑world beneficial interests and relationship to the property.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed that explanatory notes about the amendment’s purpose (to counteract abuse) cannot override clear commencement wording, and that Parliament could have drafted commencement differently if it intended the amendment to catch later related transactions, balancing that aim against avoiding retrospective effect.