Joint ventures and tax

A joint venture (JV) is a commercial arrangement entered into by two or more independent parties (referred to throughout as joint venture parties) in order to do something specific, eg to develop and market a new product, where the two (or more) parties can achieve their aim better together than separately, eg one has the research and development expertise and the other has the manufacturing expertise.

There are no specific laws, including tax laws, applicable to joint ventures and there is no technical legal meaning of the term.

The parties have a choice whether to establish their joint venture as:

  1. a contractual joint venture

  2. a joint venture partnership, or

  3. a joint venture company

The tax issues that arise in establishing, operating and terminating such a joint venture will have an impact on the choice between these types of vehicles, for which see Practice Note: Tax influences on choice of joint venture vehicle. Commercial issues will also be very important, for which see: Joint ventures for construction lawyers—overview.

This topic is concerned only with joint ventures formed between corporate entities

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 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 Tax by content type :

Popular documents