2022–23—Spring Statement, Budget and Finance Bill

ARCHIVED: This subtopic has been archived and is not maintained. It states that this subtopic draws together content on the fiscal events throughout the tax year 2022–23 starting with the Spring Statement on 23 March 2022 to the passage through Parliament of Finance Act 2023. For more information on the annual Budget and Finance Bill process, see Practice Note: The Budget and Finance Bill process.

All the analysis produced in this subtopic will be collected in Practice Note: 2022–23—Spring Statement, Budget and Finance Bill—Private Client analysis [ARCHIVED].

For information on the progress of the Autumn Finance Bill 2022 and (when published) the Spring Finance Bill 2023, detailing their progress through Parliament towards Royal Assent and describing their key provisions, see: Tax—Finance Bills 2022–23 tracker.

Spring Budget 2023

The Spring Budget 2023 is due to be delivered on 15 March 2023.

Autumn Finance Bill 2022 and Spring Finance Bill 2023

The Autumn

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 FA 2003, s 75A 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