L-L-O Contracting Ltd Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 859 (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
The appeals concerned whether taxpayers who paid SDLT but did not claim Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) in their land transaction returns could recover an alleged overpayment by way of a Schedule 10 para 34 claim. The Tribunal held para 34 can be used where the claimant believes tax was overpaid and that an overpayment can arise even if MDR was not claimed in the return, but found the claims barred by Case A of Schedule 10 para 34A because the overpayments were attributable to a "mistake" consisting of the failure to make the required claim. The appellants’ appeals were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.
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
Where an overpayment claim is made under Schedule 10 para 34 it is available even if the specific relief (here MDR) was not claimed in the original return; however, if the overpayment is attributable to a mistake consisting of the failure to make the required statutory claim or amendment (Case A of para 34A), that mistake excludes repayment under para 34.
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, in ordinary-language reasoning, treats "mistake" as capable of including omissions through ignorance or oversight so that prior awareness of the relief is not required for Case A to apply; the statutory scheme (different time limits and wording of Cases A and C) supports distinguishing failures to make required claims from other failures to apply reliefs.