Property funds (PAIFs and REITs)

Property funds come in different guises but, in each case, their primary purpose is to facilitate collective investment in real estate. Investment in real property is popular and often seen as lower risk than investing on the equity markets.

As with other fund-types, collective (as opposed to independent) investment in real estate offers many advantages. These include:

  1. the ability to share investment risk—funds can afford to take greater investment risk because risk is spread more widely and, as a result, they can potentially access higher rewards

  2. access to a larger and more diverse portfolio of property assets that an individual investor would be able to afford, and

  3. professional investment management

Collective investment in real property has been widely encouraged. Developments in the UK's tax regime to ensure that tax does not hinder or dissuade collective investment in property funds have been rapid over the last few years. Central to the UK's regime has been the development of:

  1. the UK real estate investment trust (REIT), and

  2. the property authorised investment fund (PAIF)

REITs v PAIFs

There is a good deal of overlap

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