Investment finance

Content in the Real estate in corporate transactions subtopic may be of assistance in considering issues where the investment finance is being provided to an SPV or the transaction has a corporate wrapper.

With investment finance, the lender will be primarily interested in the cashflow generated by the property rentals and whether or not these will be sufficient to service the loan interest. The loan to value ratio is also important when considering a host of factors such as liquidity and the ability to pay back the loan either by sale or refinancing. The money borrowed is usually secured on the property and income stream by way of a fixed charge over the property.

Investment finance—the lending structure and key features of the facility agreement

Real estate finance in the form of lending against the cash flow generated by a property is thought of as traditional real estate finance. In its simplest form, it involves a loan to a borrower which is repaid from the rental income of the borrower’s property and involves a loan facility provided to a borrower for it to purchase or refinance a property (or

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