Tax groupings

It is common for corporate entities to operate within a group, meaning, broadly, several companies under common ownership.

In many ways, a group of companies operates as a single economic unit. The basic UK corporation tax rules operate on a company by company basis and could in some circumstances result in unfair tax consequences for companies within a group. As a result there are a number of UK tax rules which aim to eliminate or minimise such unfair tax treatments by recognising the existence of groups of companies.

It will often be straightforward to identify a group, as typically there will be a chain, or a pyramid, of companies each of which is 100% owned by the company above it in the structure. In more complex situations, detailed rules are required to determine which companies will be regarded as grouped with one another. Different areas of the tax legislation contain different versions of such rules.

As a broad generalisation, group membership tends to be available to companies whether they are UK resident or not, but most of the benefits of membership (such as the ability to surrender tax

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