HMRC are writing to businesses within the SAO regime to update them on the progress they are making towards digitisation of the SAO process. The current plan is to launch an online service, accessed via the taxpayer’s Government Gateway Business Tax Account, for the SAO notification and certification submission process. The service is planned to launch next year, and no legislative changes are anticipated as deadlines, penalties etc will continue to apply as they do under the current process. HMRC have confirmed that businesses do not need to take any action at the moment and further communications will be sent as the launch approaches.
HMRC digitisation of Senior Accounting Officer (SAO) process – update on progress
Supreme Court hands down judgment in Axa Insurance UK PLC case
On 27 July 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Axa Insurance UK PLC and another (Appellants) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Respondents) [2026] UKSC 24. In summary, the issue the Supreme Court had to determine was whether one of the Group Litigation Order (GLO) test cases that was brought by companies in the Prudential group headed by Prudential Assurance Co Ltd plc (the Prudential test case) was determinative of the Appellants' claims, insofar as they concerned limitation and set-off. HMRC argued that the court should exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to order that the Prudential test case decision on set-off should not bind the relevant Appellant's case and, further, that the Prudential test case did not in fact determine the limitation issue as a common GLO issue. The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the Appellant's appeals. The Supreme Court has held that the Court of Appeal had been right to exercise its discretion to order that the determination of the set-off issue in the Prudential test case should not bind the relevant Appellant's claim, having observed that, if this issue were to come before it for determination now, outside the context of the GLO, it would have been decided against the relevant Appellant. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the Prudential test case did not determine the date on which the limitation period starts to run as a common GLO issue, such that there was no judgment or order in a test case in respect of the limitation issue that was binding on the relevant Appellant's claim.
UT affirms potential for claims for relief from overpaid tax where contract to acquire land is rescinded
We wrote previously about how the First-tier Tribunal allowed an appeal to reclaim SDLT previously paid, (See Candy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 416(TC) within our article titled “Two decisions on limits on relief for overpaid tax”) where an agreement to assign a lease had been substantially performed due to possession by the prospective buyer of the property and hence SDLT paid. The agreement was subsequently rescinded (due to it being novated to another party) after the 12-month deadline for amending the return, but before the four-year deadline for making an overpayment relief claim. The Upper Tribunal in HMRC v Christian Peter Candy [2026] UKUT 00282 (TCC) has now confirmed that section 44(9) of Finance Act 2003 does not, as a matter of construction, prevent a taxpayer from using overpayment relief in paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 where the statutory conditions are met. The requirement that repayment “must be claimed by amendment of the land transaction return” governs the procedure for claims under section 44(9) itself; it does not, of itself, preclude a claim under the separate overpayment relief regime with its four‑year time limit. However, the Tribunal noted that it had only decided the case on this specific point – it had not considered whether there was any overpayment of tax in the first place (and thus whether a claim for overpayment relief was prevented for that reason) as HMRC had not made this argument. For advisers, the key point is that overpayment relief remains for now a potential ‘back‑stop’ where a right to repayment of SDLT arises only after the one‑year amendment window for returns has closed (for example because the contract rescinded after this time). However, it is always necessary to test the claim against the exclusion cases in paragraph 34A (e.g. Case A where any amount of tax paid is excessive due to a mistake in a claim or election, or in making or failing to make a claim or election) and it may be arguable that tax that was correctly paid at the time, and then cannot be reclaimed under section 44(9), is not an overpayment of tax for the purposes of the relief under paragraph 34. The decision also turns on the specific SDLT rules applicable to the assignment of an agreement for lease. Where the substantially performed contract relates instead to a freehold interest and the contract is novated, the SDLT consequences and the scope for overpayment relief may be different.