The advent of the stamp duty land tax has spawned forms that are proving a nightmare for solicitors to complete, report Antonia Brandes and Robert Gradel


It is now eight months since the introduction of stamp duty land tax (SDLT). Are things as awful as we thought they would be?


The general feeling is that while the procedures are much more complicated than under the old stamp duty regime, like most things once you get used to them the procedures are not as bad as we all feared.


The most obvious difference between the systems is the new and lengthy form SDLT I that replaces the PD form. The worst aspect of this form, which runs to six pages and requires a code- book to enable one to complete it, is its sheer idiocy. Solicitors generally do not mind performing difficult and time-consuming tasks - we do them all the time. What we object to is filling in forms that ask questions of no value.


Take just one example &150; the section headed 'New Leases'. This in fact requires the solicitor to complete details of all existing leases subject to which the property has been purchased. There is room for the details of one such lease on existing form SDLT 1, details of any other existing leases must be inserted in separate forms SDLT 4. So far, so good, except that the questions asked on form SDLT 4 are completely different from the questions asked on SDLT 1. So if there are two existing leases, we must answer the following questions contained in form SDLT 1 in respect of one lease:


- Type of lease;


- Start and end dates of terms;



- Rent-free period;



- Starting rent and end date for starting rent; and



- Amount of VAT on rent. In respect of the other lease, we must answer these questions contained in form SDLT 4:



- Any terms surrendered;



- Break clauses;



- Does the lease contain: an option to renew, market rent, turnover rent, unascertainable rent, contingent rent?



- Rent review frequency;



- Date of first review;



- Type of review clause;



- Service charge amount (but it is not clear how to deal with variable service charges);



- Service charge frequency;



- Other services to be performed by tenant; and



- Other services to be performed by landlord.



Not a single question coincides. No doubt each piece of information is valuable, collected and carefully weighed by the Inland Revenue. But what for? And if the information is necessary and valuable, why is the same information not required for each existing lease?


Despite the requirement for such seemingly random details, the forms themselves do not have any place for filling in details that would identify which lease is referred to in any particular section - for example, information such as date, parties or the demised premises.


It is time-consuming to collate all this information and the strong suspicion that it is completely useless, incomplete and ignored by the Revenue makes completing form SDLT 1 a bitter task.


Apart from the length of the form, there is the minor irritation that none of the boxes is large enough to contain the required information, necessitating a multiplicity of continuation pages. We need to insert not merely the Land Registry title number of the property but its local authority number and unique property reference number, neither of which are in common use by property lawyers.


The main form refers you to form SDLT 4 for additional lease information. But only a careful reading of the guidance notes will direct a practitioner to the fact that form SDLT 4 also needs to be completed in respect of any buyer that is a company, giving its VAT reference number, tax reference number, company registered number and, if registered abroad (but not in England and Wales), its place of registration.


If the buyer comprises more than one individual, the first-named buyer's national insurance number must be given, but this does not apply to any other named buyer.


The requirement to have the form signed by the buyer personally (and do not forget it must be signed in black ink) will cause some creative problem solving during the holiday season, particularly where the purchase is funded.


The whole process also causes difficulty for lenders. There is no scope on the form to direct the Revenue to raise enquiries with the lender's solicitors, nor indeed to ask the Revenue to send the final certificate to the lender's solicitors. Therefore, an additional chain of undertakings is required between the borrower's solicitors and the lender's solicitors.


Another worrying question is what the consequences are for a solicitor being named as agent for the seller or buyer, and the liabilities that could arise. If the forms are being completed by solicitors, rather than their client or their client's accountants, or other specialist tax advisers, the solicitor needs to be extremely careful to make it clear to his client exactly what the scope of instructions are in relation to taxation matters.


However, these are but minor irritations compared with the major problem with the new procedures. The various forms are designed for very simple transactions - for example, Mr and Mrs X sell a property to Mr Y for £100,000 payable on completion.


Anything much more complicated and the forms simply do not cope. It becomes necessary to write supplemental letters and try to contact the complex transactions section of the Revenue helpline. We wrote to the complex transactions section on 18 February 2004 for guidance on various issues that arise frequently on the complicated commercial structures. Despite having chased weekly, sometimes daily and having spoken to the senior manager, we are yet to receive a reply.



To some extent, the difficulties with the forms have been disguised by the Revenue's 'light touch' arrangements. These mean that the Revenue looks wherever possible to process and issue SDLT certificates even if the land transaction returns are completed unsatisfactorily and contain some omissions and errors. However, these arrangements ended last month (see [2004] Gazette, 15 July, 5).



Antonia Brandes and Robert Gradel are a partner and associate respectively at central London law firm Fladgate Fielder