Remedies and tax

Where a dispute is brought to an end by the payment of damages or compensation, whether under a court order or an out-of-court settlement, a number of tax issues may arise. These include:

  1. whether the recipient (the claimant) will have to pay income tax, corporation tax or capital gains tax on the amount received

  2. whether the payment is subject to VAT, and, if so, whether the person making the payment (the defendant) will have to pay VAT in addition to the main amount

  3. whether the defendant will be able to claim tax relief for the payment, and

  4. whether tax considerations (including any tax on the damages or compensation payment itself, and any tax that would have been payable but for the defendant's wrongdoing) will affect the calculation of damages

The Practice Notes in this subtopic are about these issues, ie tax considerations relating to damages or compensation payments, and are introduced in more detail below. A separate subtopic considers the remedies available to a taxpayer who has paid too much tax. This is normally about whether there is a right of recovery against

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