Reviewable transactions

Certain transactions entered into by a company or an individual within a specified period before insolvency or bankruptcy may be set aside, or otherwise adjusted, by the court on the application of an administrator, liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy.

Companies

In relation to a company, the transactions that may be set aside or adjusted by the court are:

  1. transactions at an undervalue

  2. preferences

  3. transactions defrauding creditors

  4. extortionate credit transactions

  5. certain floating charges

Transactions at an undervalue—companies

A company enters into a transaction with a person at an undervalue if it:

  1. makes a gift to him, or otherwise enters into a transaction with him, on terms that the company receives no consideration, or

  2. enters into a transaction with him where the value of the consideration it receives is significantly less than that it provides

Where a company has, at a relevant time, entered into a transaction with any person at an undervalue, an administrator or liquidator may apply to court for an order restoring the position to what it would have been if the company had not entered into that transaction.

See Practice Note: Quick

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