Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Nicholas Trompeter, barrister at Selborne Chambers, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision that the respondent companies did not have to be wound up for operating a scheme to enable property owners to avoid liability for business rates in respect of unoccupied commercial properties.
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd; Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v MB Vacant Property Solutions Ltd  EWCA Civ 1017,  All ER (D) 02 (Aug)
Substantively, the judgment provides a strong reminder that legitimate tax avoidance schemes are neither morally reprehensible nor contrary to the public interest.
Furthermore, where a transaction is genuine (ie not a sham) and means what it says, then (i) its meaning and effect, and (ii) the general law, must not be distorted or manipulated on the grounds that the outcome of the transaction (whether tax avoidance or otherwise) might be considered by some to be socially reprehensible.
In this regard, the Court of Appeal followed the approach in a trilogy of cases involving schemes designed to avoid the effects of a statute:
Procedurally, the judgment also provides a salutary warning about properly identifying and pleading the grounds for winding up a company.
In this case, the appellant Secretary of State advanced a single ground for winding up against the respondent companies, ie that they lacked commercial probity in their operation of business rates avoidance schemes on the ground that the schemes ‘misused and/or abused and/or subverted the insolvency legislation’.
However, in substance, the appellant’s complaint went far wider than this, ie complaining that the very object of the schemes was to avoid payment of rates. The Court of Appeal made it clear that it was not open to the appellant to pursue this argument, given how the winding-up petition had been framed. This left the appellant to advance an academic case about an alleged misuse or abuse or subversion of ‘the insolvency legislation’ which caused no harm or loss to any member of the public either specifically or generally. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal did not consider that this justified the winding-up of the respondent companies.
This case concerned a scheme to enable property owners to avoid liability for business rates in respect of unoccupied commercial properties. The scheme was referred to as ‘Scheme 3’ (being a modified variant of two earlier schemes).
A person is liable to pay a business rate in relation to an unoccupied hereditament in respect of a chargeable financial year if the conditions in section 45(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (LGFA 1988) are met. These include the condition at LGFA 1988, s 45(1)(b) that in respect of any day in that year, the person is the owner of the whole of the hereditament.
LGFA 1988, s 65(1) provides that the owner of a hereditament is the person entitled to possession of it.
A further condition, contained in LGFA 1988, s 45(1)(d), is that the hereditament falls within a class prescribed by regulations. Regulation 3 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/386 prescribed all non-domestic hereditaments other than those exempted by SI 2008/386, reg 4. SI 2008/386, reg 4(k) contains an exemption in respect of: ‘Any hereditament…whose owner is a company which is subject to a winding up order made under the Insolvency Act 1986 or which is being wound up voluntarily under that Act.’
Under Scheme 3, business rates were avoided by the landlord leasing its empty commercial property to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) company incorporated by the respondent companies. The effect of the grant of a lease was that the SPV became the owner of the hereditament for the purposes of LGFA 1988, s 45(1)(b), as a result of LGFA 1988, s 65, and liable for business rates in relation to it. The SPV was then placed into members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL) with the effect that it was relieved of liability to pay business rates as a result of SI 2008/386, reg 4(k).
The MVL continues until the lease expires, by which time, if not before, the landlord may well have been able to find a new commercial tenant.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court, which had dismissed the appellant’s winding-up petitions.
Giving the only reasoned judgment, Asplin LJ rejected the contention that the operation of Scheme 3 involved the misuse or abuse or subversion of the insolvency legislation.
Under Scheme 3, the scheme leases were genuine contingent assets in the liquidation of the SPVs. The liquidators of the SPVs were entitled to continue the liquidation until all of the leases were determined or had expired in order to be satisfied that they had collected in all the potential assets. Furthermore, once it was accepted that the leases were genuine and not shams, then they could not be undermined by the motive behind their creation.
The Court of Appeal also held that, in determining whether it was just and equitable to wind up a company under section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the court was required to identify for itself the aspects of the public interest which would be promoted by making a winding-up order. In this case, however, there was no challenge to the judge’s finding that there was no evidence of harm to the public. Thus, an essential element of the winding-up in the public interest was missing.
Therefore, the judge at first instance had been entitled to exercise his discretion in the way he did. Having evaluated all the evidence and balanced all the relevant factors, even if there had been a misuse of the insolvency process, it was not sufficient to warrant winding up under IA 1986, s 124A. This conclusion could not be interfered with on appeal.
Nicholas Trompeter is a barrister at Selborne Chambers. If you have any questions about membership of LexisPSL’s Case Analysis Expert Panels, please contact email@example.com.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Stephen qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and joined the Restructuring and Insolvency team at Lexis®PSL in September 2014 from Shoosmiths LLP, where he was a senior associate in the restructuring and insolvency team.
Primarily focused on contentious and advisory corporate and personal insolvency work, Stephen’s experience includes acting for office-holders on a wide range of issues, including appointments, investigations and the recovery and realisation of assets (including antecedent transaction claims), and for creditors in respect of the impact on them of the insolvency of debtors and counterparties.
0330 161 1234