Cohabitation

Statutory definitions of cohabitation

Cohabitants are treated differently from married couples or civil partners, in particular in their property rights, their rights in relation to children and their rights on their partner’s death. There are various and varying statutory definitions of ‘cohabitation’, for example:

  1. references to ‘cohabitants’ as defined in section 62(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996)

  2. references to whether a couple are living in the same household as a married couple or civil partners, eg in sections 1(1A) and 1(1B) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), regarding eligibility to apply under I(PFD)A 1975

  3. section 144(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in which 'a couple' is defined as a married couple, two people who are civil partners of each other, or two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship

There have been various Cohabitation Bills but none has yet been made law.

For further guidance and commentary on proposed legislation concerning cohabitants, see Practice Note: Statutory and other definitions of cohabitation.

Definitions

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