2016–17—Autumn Statement to Finance Bill

ARCHIVED: This Overview has been archived and is not maintained.

This subtopic draws together content on the 2016-17 Budget and Finance Bill, starting with the Autumn Statement in November 2016, through the Budget in 2017 to the passage through parliament of the Finance (No.2) Act 2017. For more information on the annual Budget and Finance Bill process, see Practice Note: The Budget and Finance Bill process.

All the analysis produced in this topic will be collected in Practice Note: Autumn Statement 2016 to Finance Bill 2017—Tax Analysis.

Finance (No 2) Act 2017

The government published the second Finance Bill of 2017 on 8 September 2017, containing most of the provisions that were dropped from the previous Bill, and accompanying explanatory notes. For more on this, see News Analysis: Publication of second Finance Bill 2017.

On 13 July 2017, when the government confirmed its intention to legislate the withdrawn provisions, it released amended legislation in relation to the corporate interest restriction, hybrid mismatches, the substantial shareholdings exemption, loss reliefs and disguised remuneration. For information on the key differences between the legislation

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 Tax 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 Tax by content type :

Popular documents