Digital services tax

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the future withdrawal of DST: Following the OECD-led discussions that resulted in political agreement on a two-pillar solution in October 2021, the UK struck a deal with the US, Austria, France, Spain and Italy to transition away from DST to the new global tax system, with a new DST-credit system being used for the transition. As part of the deal, the UK would keep the revenue raised from DST until the Pillar One reforms became operational and, once Pillar One was in effect, businesses would be able to use the difference between what they paid in DST from January 2022, and what they would have paid if Pillar One had been in effect instead, as credit against their future UK corporation tax bill. In return, the US (which views digital services taxes as discriminatory against US companies) agreed to withdraw proposed retaliatory tariffs on some US imports from the other five countries, and committed to not taking further trade action against those countries because of their digital services taxes until the interim period ended. This agreement was extended by all six countries to 30

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