Agricultural tenancies

The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (ATA 1995) introduced the farm business tenancy as a replacement for the agricultural holding tenancy (governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (AHA 1986)). For further guidance, see Practice Note: Identifying a farm business tenancy.

Farm business tenancy

A tenancy of agricultural land created on or after 1st September 1995 is a farm business tenancy if it meets:

  1. the ‘Business Condition’, and either:

    1. the ‘Notice Condition’, or

    2. the ‘Agriculture Condition’

The Business Condition

All or part of the land must at all times during the tenancy be farmed for trade or business (not necessarily an agricultural trade or business).

The Notice Condition

Before the tenancy begins, the proposed landlord and tenant must exchange notices stating that the tenancy is to 'be and remain' a farm business tenancy and that its character will be, at first, primarily agricultural.

The Agriculture Condition

At the relevant time (not necessarily at the beginning of the tenancy) the tenancy must be primarily or wholly agricultural.

Some types of tenancy can be within ATA 1995

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 Property 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 Property by content type :

Popular documents