2016–17—Autumn Statement to Finance Bill

ARCHIVED: This Overview has been archived and is not maintained.

This subtopic draws together content on the Finance Bill year 2016–17, ie starting with the Autumn Statement in November 2016 and following through the Budget in 2017 to the passage through parliament of the Finance Act 2017 (FA 2017) and the second Finance Bill 2017.

The Practice Note: Autumn Statement 2016 to Finance Act 2017—Private Client analysis [Archived] provides a guide to all of the resources on this subject available on Private Client. A summary of the key points is provided below.

Second Finance Bill 2017

On 8 September 2017, the government published the second Finance Bill 2017, which reinstates a substantial number of provisions which were dropped from the Finance Act 2017 due to the calling of the June 2017 general election. Some of the clauses contained in the second Finance Bill 2017 had been republished on 13 July 2017 (see LNB News 13/07/2017 144) with technical amendments to ensure that clauses with retrospective effect (ie those originally announced as applying from 1 or 6 April 2017, or

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents