General principles of tax avoidance

Since the turn of this century, successive governments have been seeking to clamp down on perceived tax avoidance by wealthy individuals by way of stricter anti-avoidance rules with wider scope as to what constitutes tax avoidance, increased powers for HMRC and harsher penalties.

Historically, offshore arrangements have been widely used by UK resident and domiciled individuals as well as UK resident non-domiciliaries to avoid UK taxation. The government's stance on offshore tax planning has hardened significantly over the years and to limit the scope for tax planning a series of anti-avoidance measures have been introduced. Initially, such measures were mainly aimed at UK-domiciled individuals, but since 2008, non-domiciliaries have increasingly been targeted by measures sought to restrict the benefits achieved through the remittance basis of taxation. With effect from 6 April 2025, it is an individual’s long-term residence status in the UK, rather than their domicile, which is relevant in their liability to tax and the application of anti-avoidance measures, although there are transitional measures. For more information, see Practice Note: Fast find content on the changes to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals

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