Landed estates and farming families

Strict settlements

A strict settlement is a settlement of land falling under the Settled Land Act 1925 (SLA 1925). At one time, landed estates were almost universally held in strict settlements and some knowledge of strict settlements makes it easier to understand the older title deeds to a landed estate. An understanding of strict settlements can also make it easier to interpret modern settlements of land that have been created by restructuring older strict settlements.

The aim of a strict settlement was generally to ensure so far as possible that a landed estate passed through the senior male line of the family, while also providing for other family members. It was designed to ensure that no one family member could unilaterally bring a settlement to an end and sell the land for their own benefit. The strategy was to use a combination of life estates (or life interests after 1925) and fee tails (or equitable entailed interests after 1925). The advantage of a life interest was that the owner could not enlarge it while the advantage of an entailed interest was that it could continue

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