Joint ventures in property transactions

A property joint venture (JV) is an arrangement between two or more parties under which they combine disparate contributions in order to derive value from the development, acquisition or management of property. Although in the vast majority of instances that value will be measured in terms of income or capital profits, there are some joint venturers (such as local authorities) who participate for social reasons (eg in relation to urban regeneration schemes, community projects, etc). The contributions made by the joint venturers will usually involve some combination of:

  1. cash, or the ability to enter into financing commitments

  2. tangible assets, eg land

  3. intangible assets, eg expertise, intellectual property, construction services, contractual rights, etc

Property acquisition, investment, development and funding often involves collaborative JVs between a number of parties (property companies, on and off-shore investors, developers, land owners, public sector bodies and funders) who contribute capital, property, resources and skill and share risk. Parties to a JV need to consider:

  1. commercial issues surrounding purpose, creation, management, profit and risk sharing and termination of the JV

  2. the choice of 'vehicle' or structure for 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 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