Commonhold

Commonhold is a form of freehold estate, introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002), which took effect from 27 September 2004.

Commonhold seeks to address some of the key problems associated with leasehold property, in particular to combine the security of freehold ownership with the management potential of positive covenants which could be made to apply to each owner of an interdependent property. Unlike freehold ownership, commonhold provides a straightforward legal mechanism for making the burden of positive covenants (such as an obligation to pay towards maintenance and services) bind successive owners. For further guidance on positive covenants and freehold land, see Practice Note: Positive covenants—binding successors in title.

A commonhold consists of separate commonhold units and common parts. The owners of the units are called unit-holders. A commonhold unit need not contain all or any part of a building. The common parts are shared facilities. In a shared building, the common parts may include facilities such as the roof, stairs and landings. On an estate, they might include common access roads or car parking. The common parts are owned and managed

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