Stamp duty reserve tax

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the modernisation of stamp taxes on shares framework: Following the call for evidence in 2020, the resulting outcome published in 2021, consideration by the relevant HMRC and industry working group and the 2023 consultation, the government confirmed in the consultation outcome published on 28 April 2025 that, in 2027, it intends to replace stamp duty and SDRT with a single self-assessed stamp tax on securities, generally in accordance with the proposals outlined in the 2023 consultation document. Additionally, the government is consulting on modernising and clarifying the legislation imposing the higher rate 1.5% stamp tax charge. For more information, see News Analysis articles: Tax update spring 2025—Stamp taxes on shares modernisation, Tax update spring 2025—Tax analysis—Stamp and transfer taxes, TAMD 2023—Stamp taxes on shares modernisation, TAMD 2023—consultation—stamp taxes on shares and Tax Administration and Maintenance Day—27 April 2023—Stamp and transfer taxes.

Subject to exemptions and reliefs, stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT) applies to:

•
agreements (whether oral or written) to transfer chargeable securities for consideration in money or money's worth (including deemed consideration in accordance with the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

Upper Tribunal rules on application of purpose tests in the context of Transactions in Securities regime (Osmond and Allen v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Osmond and Allen v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal, holding that they did not necessarily have a main purpose of obtaining ‘an income tax advantage’ under the Transactions in Securities (TIS) regime simply by virtue of having a main purpose of obtaining the benefit of Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) disposal relief. Obtaining EIS relief from capital gains tax created an ‘income tax advantage’ for the purposes of section 687 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found as a matter of fact that the taxpayers did not have the subjective purpose of obtaining this income tax advantage. Surprisingly, however, the FTT held that because they had a main purpose of obtaining the EIS benefit (notably, a capital gains tax), it followed that they had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Concluding that the FTT had erred as a matter of law, the UT held that the taxpayers’ desire to crystallise their EIS disposal relief did not mean that they necessarily had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Written by Susanna Breslin, barrister at 11 New Square.

Court of Appeal confirms that loans made under remuneration trust arrangements were taxable as disguised remuneration and related payments were not deductible (Marlborough DP Limited v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Marlborough DP Ltd, the Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT), confirming that loans made to a director under a remuneration trust (RT) scheme were taxable under the disguised remuneration legislation in Part 7A of the Income Tax Earnings and Pensions Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) as being ‘in connection with’ employment. The court also agreed that the related payments were not deductible for corporation tax purposes, as they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company’s trade.

UT holds that VAT exemption did not apply for single composite supply of financial services (JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In JPMorgan Chase Bank NA the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the company’s appeal and upheld the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that the supply of intra-group services was a single composite taxable supply and the VAT exemption for financial services did not apply.

Supreme Court rules that the hire cap under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict deductions (HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd)

Tax analysis: In Dolphin Drilling, the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal, deciding that the ‘hire cap’ under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict the corporation tax deduction available to it for the cost of chartering a tender support vessel (TSV).