Contractual schemes

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to CoACS: On 2 April 2024, the government published draft regulations for consultation which (in addition to providing the tax rules for the new reserved investor fund) make minor changes to the tax rules for co-ownership authorised contractual schemes (CoACS) to ensure that those rules work as intended, and to address points raised through the reserved investor fund policy consultation. The consultation closes on 14 May 2024.

What is an authorised contractual scheme (ACS)?

An authorised contractual scheme (ACS) is a type of authorised collective investment scheme that was introduced in 2013 with the aim of providing a UK alternative to the genuinely tax-transparent authorised fund structures that were available in other jurisdictions, such as Luxembourg and Ireland.

ACSs are authorised and regulated in broadly the same way as UK authorised funds structured as authorised unit trusts (AUTs) and open-ended investment companies (OEICs) (known together in the tax world as AIFs), but are quite different from AIFs as regards their legal form and tax status.

An ACS is essentially a pool of assets held by a depositary and managed on behalf

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