William David Robinson & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 January 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 55 (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 appeal concerned a Cornerstone-advised scheme intended to avoid SDLT on a £599,950 residential purchase by using a pre-completion subsale of an equitable interest and an annuity, two nil-return SDLT filings, and a later HMRC closure notice assessing £19,997. The First-tier Tribunal held the scheme was a tax avoidance arrangement, the subsale did not create a person other than the original purchaser entitled to call for conveyance so Schedule 2A relief did not apply, and s75 TAAR should be used to disregard the scheme transactions and charge SDLT on a notional vendor→purchaser transaction. Section 52 did not prevent application of s75, and the tribunal struck out the appeal as having no realistic prospect of success.
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 tribunal’s ratio is that a purposive, realistic reading of Schedule 2A excludes as qualifying pre-completion transactions those subsales of equitable interest where no person other than the original purchaser becomes entitled to call for conveyance; where scheme transactions exist that reduce SDLT below what would be payable on the notional vendor→purchaser transfer, s75 applies to disregard the scheme land transactions and charge SDLT on the notional transaction; paragraph 18 prevents relief for qualifying subsales that form part of tax avoidance arrangements.
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 judgment expressed doubt about the technical merits of the legal analyses advanced by Cornerstone and Goldstone and criticised their failure to engage with HMRC’s contentions; it also observed that irregularities in multiple SDLT returns do not necessarily defeat a valid closure notice, and suggested that s52 can operate as a charging provision without displacing a mechanical application of s75 in scheme cases.