Charity litigation

The jurisdiction of the courts in relation to charities

This Practice Note considers the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to charities. It looks at the types of application that may be heard and also the limits to the court’s jurisdiction to supervise charities.

See Practice Note: The jurisdiction of the courts in relation to charities.

Charity litigation—should a charity engage in litigation?

This Practice Note considers whether a charity should engage in litigation—be it initiating or defending proceedings. It sets out considerations for trustees of charities—whether CIOs, corporates, trusts, membership bodies or otherwise—who are involved in or contemplating civil litigation. It looks at the principles of charity trustee decision making in the context of litigation.

See Practice Note: Charity litigation—should a charity engage in litigation?

Charity litigation—charity proceedings

Charity proceedings relate to the internal administration of a charity or its domestic affairs.

See Practice Note: Charity litigation—charity proceedings.

Charity litigation—compromising charity litigation

This Practice Note covers

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