Capital gains tax

The charge to CGT

The charge to CGT arises when a person disposes of an asset and makes a profit on the disposal that is capital in nature. For an overview of CGT as a whole (including its scope, reliefs and compliance), see Practice Note: Introductory guide to CGT. See also: Capital gains tax—client guide.

When deciding whether a charge to CGT arises, there are a number of aspects to consider.

The asset, the disposal and the person making the disposal must all be of a type that can attract CGT

CGT is payable by individuals, trustees and personal representatives (PRs). Companies generally do not pay CGT but are subject to corporation tax on their chargeable capital gains (although see below in respect of CGT payable on disposals of UK residential property owned by non-natural persons prior to 6 April 2019). In the context of UK real property and separately in relation to individuals who are deemed domiciled in the UK for CGT purposes on or after 6 April 2017, a person may be within the scope of CGT even where they are not UK resident

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