Rent and rent review

Reserving and paying rent

The amount of rent must be 'certain'—see Practice Note: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences—Term which is certain. This does not mean that the lease must state the actual figures for the whole of the term. However, there must be a mechanism (usually a rent review clause) allowing the rent to be ascertained with certainty throughout the term.

No particular form of words is required to reserve rent, although the formula 'yielding and paying during the term' is widely used.

Although in itself a strong indicator that the parties intended to create a tenancy, rent is not required for a tenancy to exist. If the other 'hallmarks' identified in Street v Mountford are present (ie exclusive possession of defined premises for a term), then a tenancy can exist even if no rent is reserved or payable—see Practice Note: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences.

Commercial rents are usually paid in advance by equal instalments on the usual quarter days (25 December, 25 March, 24 June and 29 September) or on other dates specified in the lease as rent

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