ATED

What is the annual tax on enveloped dwellings?

The annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) was introduced as part of a package of measures aimed at making it less attractive to hold high-value UK residential property indirectly, eg through a company, in order to avoid or minimise taxes such as stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on a subsequent disposal of the property.

The other measures included in the anti-avoidance package relating to high-value UK residential property include:

  1. the single higher rate of SDLT on the acquisition of high-value UK residential property for non-natural persons (NNPs) (for further details, see Practice Notes: Rates of SDLT and Single higher rate of SDLT for high-value residential property transactions), and

  2. prior to 6 April 2019, a capital gains tax (CGT) charge on sales of high-value UK residential property by NNPs (abolished from 6 April 2019) (for further details, see Practice Note: Capital gains tax charge on ATED-related gains [Archived])

When does ATED apply?

The provisions enacting ATED are set out in Part 3 of the Finance Act 2013 (FA 2013). ATED

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