Property holding structures

Tax is a key consideration when selecting an appropriate structure for holding UK property, together with all relevant commercial and other legal considerations. The tax treatment of a particular structure should always be considered in conjunction with the following factors:

  1. the tax profiles of the ultimate owners—where they are resident, if they are companies or individuals etc, and

  2. whether the UK property is to be held as an investment or an item of trading stock

This sub-topic covers the tax treatment of the most common structures for holding UK real estate, including:

  1. corporate structures

  2. partnership structures

  3. offshore unauthorised property unit trust structures (eg JPUTs), and

  4. contractual joint ownership structures

The Practice Notes in this sub-topic focus primarily on the direct tax (ie corporation tax, income tax and CGT) treatment of these holding structures. In this overview, CGT means both capital gains tax and corporation tax on chargeable gains save where expressly specified. Where appropriate, the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) is discussed. For further details on ATED, see our ATED subtopic.

The indirect tax

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 FA 2003, s 75A 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