The purchaser of land created a sub-sale and leaseback with bank so as to fund the purchase in a manner which would comply with Islamic finance principles. The Court was now asked whether purchaser or the bank were liable for stamp duty land tax on the transaction.
Held: (Briggs L JSC dissenting). The language used in the Act was ‘real world’ rather than technical, so the question was which party in similar real world terms had sold the major interest in land to the financial institution? Here that had been the company who accordingly was the vendor under 71A(2), and subject to 75A would be relieved from Duty.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs
[2018] 3 All ER 943, [2018] UKSC 30, [2018] WLR(D) 371, [2018] STC 1355, [2018] 1 WLR 3169, [2018] BTC 23, UKSC 2016/0137
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Feb 28 am Video, SC 28 Feb 2018 pm Video, SC 01 Mar 2018 am Video, SC 01 Mar 2018 pm Video
Finance Act 2003 45 71A
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 5-Jul-2013
FTTTx STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – sale of property with subsequent Shari’a – compliant sub-sale and lease-back – no SDLT paid pursuant to sections 45(3) and 71A Finance Act 2003- application of section 75A Finance Act . .
At UTTC – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs UTTC 18-Dec-2014
Stamp Duty Land Tax – Sale and sub-sale of large development site – Application of Finance Act 2003, section 45(3), in the form current in 2007 and 2008 – Sub-sale to financial institution – Interpretation and application of Finance Act 2003, . .
Appeal From (CA) – Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2016
The company had purchased the site of the former Chelsea barracks. It was in turn owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, which financed the purchase by a Sharia compliant loan scheme, which was implemented creating a lease and buy back . .
Cited – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1979
Taxes are imposed upon subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v DV3 RS Ltd Partnership CA 25-Jul-2013
The company appealed against a finding that its stamp duty land tax saving scheme was ineffective. The court was now asked whether a sale on by a company to a newly formed partnership comprising itself and four other partners of a lease which the . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Mayes CA 12-Apr-2011
The court was asked whether a scheme (SHIPS 2) for obtaining relief from tax was made up of a pre-ordained, composite, artifical and tax-motivated events and could be disregarded for fiscal purposes.
If there are lacunas in a statutory regime . .
Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .
Cited – DV3 RS Ltd Partnership v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 24-Feb-2011
FTTTx SDLT – subsale – acquisition by partnership – effect of section 45 and 44 on para 10 Sch 15 FA 2003 . .
Cited – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Nov-2004
The company had paid substantial sums out in establishing a gas pipeline, and claimed those sums against its tax as capital allowances. The transaction involved a sale and leaseback arrangement which the special commissioners had found to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.617858
