Execution clauses

Lawyers work on a huge variety of transactions, but all of them will in some way involve written agreements that will need to be executed by the parties. For this reason, it is very important that lawyers know when a deed is required and fully understand the differences in how deeds and simple contracts are executed.

This subtopic summarises the law, guidance and practice relating to simple contracts and deeds, including in particular:

  1. the key elements that must be present to create a contract

  2. what simple contracts are and how they are executed

  3. what a deed is and the particular transactions for which a deed (rather than a simple contract) is required

  4. the formalities for creating valid deeds

  5. guidance on executing deeds and simple contracts in counterpart, and

  6. how to circulate pre-signed counterpart signature pages and virtual closings

The law and practice relating to the execution of simple contracts and deeds under English law is summarised in Practice Note: Executing documents—deeds and simple contracts , as well as the key differences and the execution formalities for each. For more information, see Practice Notes:

  1. Virtual

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; 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