Stamp duty: it's not just the super wealthy who avoid paying property tax This can cut stamp duty from 5pc to just 0.5pc. It also allows the purchaser to avoid inheritance tax when they die. The second type of avoidance is highly complex and involves trust arrangements - it is shrouded in mystery, as few people want to go into the nitty gritty on how it works. Patrick Cannon, a barrister, said these schemes were "highly technical" and great care needed to be taken when drafting. "If I told you, it would come out in print all wrong," he said. It always happens. He also warned buyers that "there are some very disreputable firms in the market." He added: "They are not licensed or regulated, as they don't have to be." And while the focus on stamp duty avoidance tends to focus on Russian oligarchs and wealthy businessman from the Middle East buying multi-million-pound houses in Belgravia, Mr Cannon said that people buying more modest properties, albeit worth more than £500,000, were also trying to avoid paying stamp duty. He said: "If you have a good adviser, it is possible to save money legally, but the lower the fee, the less care the advisers will take." Fees for avoidance schemes typically vary between 3pc and 1.5pc. For example, one such website boasts that it can save £32,000 worth of stamp duty on a £1m property by pocketing £18,000 (1.8pc) in fees. HM Revenue & Customs insisted it was doing all it could, and said it believed none of the SDLT avoidance schemes worked. A spokesman said: "HMRC are well aware of a variety of schemes which are being marketed as stamp duty avoidance structures. The fact is that none of the schemes we are aware of actually work and where people try to use them, we will pursue them for the tax owed. We are liaising closely with the Land Registry to ensure that remains the case, and that those who use these schemes pay the full back tax plus interest. But accountants are not so sure. Lisa Benosiglio, tax director at BDO's real estate and construction group, said: "I think the real reason why there is still an appetite for schemes is that HMRC have not really shown the market what they can do. They have given warnings that they have the weapons, but have not shown these to any real effect, and we have not seen any 'punishments' handed out to scheme users. HMRC have also been extremely slow in bringing cases to court. Ms Benosiglio pointed out that HMRC had lost the first case on SDLT avoidance - the DV3 Tribunal case. "The mere fact that HMRC have lost a test case which took them over four years to bring to court perhaps gives the market a false sense of security," she added.