In O Fanning v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (13 March) the CA held that the SDLT subsale provisions did not apply in a case where the taxpayer granted a call option under which an unconnected third party could buy the property at a later date.
The taxpayer acquired a residential property in 2011 from an unrelated vendor for £5m via a sub-sale scheme. Under the scheme at the same time as the contract for the acquisition of the property was completed the taxpayer granted a call option to SLE plc for £100 under which the company could buy the property for a market value consideration. The option could be exercised at any time between 2016 and 2031. The taxpayer was executive chairman of the company but was not connected with it for tax purposes. He filed an SDLT return...
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 O Fanning v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (13 March) the CA held that the SDLT subsale provisions did not apply in a case where the taxpayer granted a call option under which an unconnected third party could buy the property at a later date.
The taxpayer acquired a residential property in 2011 from an unrelated vendor for £5m via a sub-sale scheme. Under the scheme at the same time as the contract for the acquisition of the property was completed the taxpayer granted a call option to SLE plc for £100 under which the company could buy the property for a market value consideration. The option could be exercised at any time between 2016 and 2031. The taxpayer was executive chairman of the company but was not connected with it for tax purposes. He filed an SDLT return...
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:
