Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) reform is once again under discussion, with the demise of Angela Rayner’s political career owing to SDLT liabilities and the budget looming, speculation is rife about what changes might be on the horizon It’s an apt moment to reflect on what those working at the coalface of conveyancing would actually want from reform. Irwin Mitchell Conveyancing colleagues (Charlotte Osborne, Rebecca Roberts, Helen Hutchison and Jo Robinson) formed a Round Table to discuss the current regime and what they would like to see changed.  

Complexity: The Core Problem 

The Angela Rayner case has highlighted just how labyrinthine SDLT rules have become. If a senior politician can be tripped by the intricacies, what hope is there for the average buyer or seller? As Charlotte put it, “the tax rules are ridiculously complicated and need to be simplified across the board.” The sheer volume of exemptions, reliefs, and technicalities means that even seasoned professionals struggle to keep up, let alone clients. 

The Burden on Conveyancers 

There’s a recurring theme: conveyancers are increasingly expected to be tax experts, risk managers, and all-round problem solvers. Yet, as Rebecca noted, “We’re always going to be in the firing line for the blame if there is something like that.”  

Although the Law Society guidance is clear enough (“A solicitor who does not have the necessary specialist knowledge of tax should not advise on it and may need to advise clients to obtain specialist SDLT advice, especially in relation to higher risk transactions.” - Law Society Guide on Stamp Duty Land Tax) in practice it is difficult for clients to understand that a conveyancer is not an expert in everything relating to their property and that they must seek further advice with an additional cost. This is especially the case when a conveyancer explains that they must prepare and submit the return as part of the transaction. In addition, the increasing complexities and interconnection between reliefs and surcharges, means even a straight-forward transaction can quickly become ‘higher risk’. 

Reliefs and Surcharges 

The abolition of Multiple Dwelling Relief was broadly welcome as it put a stop to unscrupulous claims that conveyancers had missed the relief. Claims which cost conveyancers time and money as they were obliged to investigate the particulars of the case and double check their calculations.  One of the team had an example of a property with a basement room which was accessible from street-level by way of a separate staircase. After completion, the client contacted us as they had been approached by a claim company who said they could get a refund on the tax paid as the room would amount to a separate dwelling. This, of course, was incorrect; however, it took time to assess the claim and reassure the client.  

Other reliefs and surcharges which remain in place are still complex, for example, the Non-UK resident surcharge, where a non-UK resident is defined as a person who spends fewer than 183 days in the UK in any continuous period of 365 days beginning 364 days before and ending 365 days after completion of the purchase. This means a person who has spent the previous 364 days out of the country can still be considered a UK resident, if they promise to stay in the UK for at least 183 days of the next year. Although the purpose of introducing the surcharge was to prevent overseas investors from taking properties and outpricing locals, the implementation has made any abuse very difficult to verify or enforce.  

The higher rates for the purchase of additional properties are also a minefield. Again, the intentions were noble, but the process penalises clients who have legitimate reasons for buying a property before disposing of their existing property, and they must then deal with an administrative burden of obtaining a refund. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the Angela Rayner case, it is not always straight forward for clients to understand whether they technically own a property, for example, if the property has been put in trust.  

Who Should Pay? Seller vs Buyer 

There’s talk of shifting SDLT liability to sellers, but this raises its own issues. As Jo pointed out, “The person who’s selling the house has already paid tax when they bought it, so in effect they’re being double taxed.” Such a move could discourage sales, particularly among those looking to downsize. Furthermore, in the current process the buyer is barred from registering their purchase at the Land Registry unless evidence of payment of SDLT is provided. If the payment must be made by the seller, how will this be enforced? Will this be an additional burden on conveyancers to ensure the tax is paid? 

One off or monthly payments 

There is speculation that Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) may shift from a one-off payment at the point of property purchase to a monthly instalment model. While this may appear to ease the financial burden on buyers, such a change would be unworkable in practice for conveyancers. Managing ongoing SDLT payments would likely breach SRA accounting rules and fundamentally alter the role of conveyancers in the transaction process. If adopted, responsibility for SDLT collection would need to be removed from conveyancers entirely. Moreover, the Land Registry requires the SDLT receipt before they progress any application; a monthly model could undermine this verification process and complicate enforcement for HMRC. It may also introduce uncertainty into future transactions, particularly where a property is sold before the SDLT liability is fully discharged, creating potential complications for both buyers and sellers. Helen said “if the payment of SDLT is going to be on a different basis, perhaps it would be best to remove SDLT from the conveyancing process and have it dealt with by specialist tax advisors, in a similar way to Capital Gains.” 

The Case for Consultation 

The conveyancing professional has been resilient as historically the government has stimulated the residential property market with variations to the SDLT regime. However, SDLT holidays and short notices of changes have taken their toll, with many conveyancers suffering from burnout and leaving the profession altogether. Perhaps, the most important takeaway is the need for genuine consultation with those who do the work. “It would be good if the government just consulted with the professionals on the ground,” said Charlotte. Too often, changes are made overnight, causing chaos for practitioners and confusion for clients. A more collaborative approach could yield reforms that work in practice. 

Looking Ahead 

With the budget set for late November, the property market is once again holding its breath. The uncertainty creates a “cliff edge” effect, with clients rushing or delaying transactions based on what they think might be announced. The market needs stability, not more rollercoaster holidays and piecemeal fixes. 

Conclusion 

SDLT reform is overdue, but it must be more than a headline-grabbing tweak. Simplification, fairness, and proper consultation are essential. The reliefs and exemptions should help ordinary buyers and sellers, not just those with specialist advisers or complex arrangements. And above all, the voices of conveyancers—those who see the real-world impact every day—must be heard.