Old CFC rules

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.

The CFC regime imposes a UK tax charge on the UK resident controllers in respect of the profits of certain controlled foreign companies (CFCs). The regime described here is the old CFC regime applying for accounting periods of CFCs starting before 1 January 2013. The regime was completely reformed with effect for accounting periods of CFCs starting on or after 1 January 2013, for which see: CFC rules—overview.

Definition of a CFC

A CFC is a company that is:

  1. resident outside the UK

  2. controlled by persons resident in the UK, and

  3. subject to a lower level of taxation in the territory in which it is resident

See: Old CFC rules—definition of a CFC: residence and Old CFC rules—definition of a CFC: control.

Exceptions from the CFC rules

Even if a company is found to be a CFC, the CFC regime does not apply if the CFC:

  1. is engaged in certain exempt activities

  2. is a trading company with a limited UK connection

  3. is

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