Hybrid mismatches

The UK’s rules on hybrid and other mismatches (referred to in this Practice Note as the hybrid rules) have applied since 1 January 2017 and aim to counteract tax mismatches that arise from the way in which a hybrid instrument or a hybrid entity is treated for tax purposes. Although the hybrid rules normally apply to cross-border transactions involving two or more jurisdictions, they can also apply to purely UK domestic transactions. Specifically, the hybrid rules target:

  1. deduction/non-inclusion mismatches (D/NI mismatches), ie where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement is deductible in the payer jurisdiction for tax purposes but not included in the taxable income of a payee or a related party investor, and

  2. double deduction cases (DD cases), ie where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement gives rise to more than one tax deduction

The hybrid rules deal with different categories of D/NI mismatches and DD cases in separate chapters. In each case, the relevant hybrid rules only apply if the relevant conditions have been satisfied.

For more information on the hybrid rules, see UK rules counteracting hybrid mismatch arrangements—table and Practice Notes:

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