Enfranchisement in mixed use schemes

Mixed use developments are schemes which comprise one or more buildings used for commercial, retail and/or industrial use where there is also an element of residential accommodation. Even where the residential element is ancillary to the main commercial use, these schemes need to be treated with a degree of caution largely due to the different legislative regimes relating to commercial and residential property and in particular the rights of long leasehold residential tenants.

Collective enfranchisement

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) gives occupiers of long residential flat leases (more than 21 years) the collective right to buy the freehold and any intermediary leasehold interest where the residential floor areas comprise 75% or more of the whole development (not including common parts). Given the increased presence of flats within development schemes, particularly in mixed use developments, this represents a valuable right for such tenants. Where there are service charge contributions or commercial rental income streams, collapsing of superior leasehold interests could result in the obligation to contribute to service charge falling away or the potential loss of the commercial rental

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