Structure of real estate finance

The role of the real estate lawyer

In both investment and development real estate finance transactions, lawyers will also play a key role in negotiating all the documentation. Real estate lawyers will be of particular importance, providing reports to both the lender(s) and the borrower in relation to the title of the property being acquired and/or developed.

Depending on the nature and size of the transaction, the real estate lawyer may be instructed by the funder directly (usually one of the main institutional lenders) to prepare the funder's standard in-house documents such as the facility agreement, legal charge, guarantees and other security documents as well as undertake due diligence and report to the funder either using its own form of in-house report or using the City of London Law Society Certificate of Title. In this instance, the real estate lawyer may be involved in completing the legal charge as well as any other ancillary security as part of the security package.

In larger transactions, the real estate lawyer will often work with the banking and finance lawyers on a transaction either acting for the borrower or the

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