Real estate in corporate transactions

Key issues and starting points

Many corporate business transactions (asset purchase, share purchase or merger transactions (M&A)) have a property element and will involve the acquisition of at least one leasehold or freehold interest. The property component of a corporate transaction may vary in importance and complexity depending on the nature of the business and the extent of property assets, ie:

  1. where the property is a trading asset and only has significance because of how it will be used in the buyer’s business operations—whether of primary importance to the operation of the business (eg the character and location of a building in a hotel or restaurant business purchase) or surplus to requirements (eg the buyer intends to rationalise business assets and sell off the target company or business property)

  2. where property is held as an investment asset and the corporate structure or ‘wrap’ is incidental to the main business of property investment, see: Property fund structures—overview

Choice of structure (share or asset purchase)

A business may be acquired by way of share purchase or asset purchase. Under a share purchase, the buyer takes over ownership

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