In Minera Las Bambas and another v Glencore Queensland and others [2018] EWHC 1658 (29 June 2018) the High Court found that tax was only payable under the terms of a share purchase agreement (SPA) once a court had upheld an assessment issued by the tax authorities.
Glencore had sold 100% of the shares in Xstrata (which owned a mining project) to Minera under an SPA. The mining project involved the resettlement of a rural community to a new town built for this purpose. An agreement between the community and Xstrata provided that the community was to vacate the land and transfer it to Minera which was to transfer land to the new town in exchange under a ‘swap agreement’. No VAT was paid by Minera in relation to the property transfer.
The Peruvian tax authorities considered that VAT was due...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Minera Las Bambas and another v Glencore Queensland and others [2018] EWHC 1658 (29 June 2018) the High Court found that tax was only payable under the terms of a share purchase agreement (SPA) once a court had upheld an assessment issued by the tax authorities.
Glencore had sold 100% of the shares in Xstrata (which owned a mining project) to Minera under an SPA. The mining project involved the resettlement of a rural community to a new town built for this purpose. An agreement between the community and Xstrata provided that the community was to vacate the land and transfer it to Minera which was to transfer land to the new town in exchange under a ‘swap agreement’. No VAT was paid by Minera in relation to the property transfer.
The Peruvian tax authorities considered that VAT was due...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
