Offshore companies

Planning for high net worth private clients with international ties who are UK resident has often involved the use of non-UK resident companies, whether owned directly by individuals or through an offshore trust/company structure.

Potential advantages of using a company include:

  1. Privacy and anonymity: Offshore companies can offer a layer of privacy by not disclosing the ultimate beneficial owner publicly. However, UK law now requires registration of beneficial owners of entities which hold UK land

  2. Asset protection: Holding assets through a foreign company can shield them from local creditors or legal claims, depending on the jurisdiction

  3. Tax efficiency: In some cases, offshore companies may benefit from lower corporate tax rates or deferral of UK taxes, especially if the company is not deemed to have a UK permanent establishment

  4. Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) planning: in the case of a company which holds UK residential property, there is no SDLT charge on acquisition of the shares of the company, whereas there would be a significant SDLT charge where a company acquires the property directly

However, as a general rule, directly-owned offshore

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