Transferring agricultural property

Transferring agricultural property—overview

General

In principle, the sale and purchase of agricultural land operates in the same way as for any other land or buildings. Nevertheless, some special factors must be taken into consideration. For example, if the land is subject to tenancies, the rights afforded to agricultural tenants are quite distinct from, and often more extensive than, the rights afforded to residential or commercial tenants.

Prior to Brexit, farmers were able to claim direct subsidy payments as a result of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which from 2015 was implemented in England and Wales by way of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) (replacing the earlier Single Payment Scheme). In conjunction with subsidy payments made under the BPS, farmers in England and Wales were also entitled to receive additional payments if they participated in any one or more of a wide range of agri-environmental schemes.

Following Brexit, payments to farmers in England and Wales are funded entirely domestically in accordance with the provisions of the Agriculture Act 2020. That Act paves the way for substantial

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 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 Property by content type :

Popular documents