Visas and immigration

There are various routes under which a non-UK resident may come to live and/or work in the UK. Much will depend on the individual's nationality, their financial resources, employment or business prospects, their intentions for staying in the UK on a long-term basis and the ability or desire to bring family members with them to the UK. This subtopic looks at the routes most commonly used by private clients and their companies. It also considers procedural matters, citizenship issues, the differing position of European Economic Area (ie the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) (EEA) and non-EEA nationals as well as offences relating to hiring illegal workers.

For information on coming to the UK as a visitor, ie for a temporary purpose without the intention of living in the UK, see: Visitor—overview.

The main statute in this area is the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971), which provides for the content of the Immigration Rules and for them to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Immigration Rules are made by the Secretary of State for the Home Office and set out detailed

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