Manor House Surgery (Glossop and Hadfield) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Apr 2011

Flat rate penalty – return of land transactions – computer system error: ‘ the flat-rate penalty for the late filing of the SDLT1 of andpound;100 for each transaction was correctly imposed and that there was no reasonable excuse for the late filing. There was no exceptional event beyond the Appellants’ control which prevented the SDLT1 from being delivered by the . . latest date by which the return could be filed without incurring a late filing penalty.’

[2011] UKFTT 236 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 76
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.442992

Henderson Investment Funds Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Oct 2015

FTTTx Stamp Duty : Exemptions and Reliefs – STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX – interpretation of para 7 of Part II of Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 – that there is no charge on the surrender of a unit if the unit holder receives only such part of each description of asset in the trust as is proportionate to, or as nearly as practicable proportionate to, the unit holder’s share – whether this applied to the extent that the surrender was proportionate – whether recourse to Hansard permitted as an aid to interpretation. Appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 505 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.556157

Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 16 Oct 2008

The company appealed against a refusal to refund Stamp Duty Land Tax in respect of two land transactions. They claimed entitlement to full relief as an enfanchisement. The initial notices had been given by an incorrectly formed RTE company. Though the property had been purchased by a compliant company, the notices were said to remain ineffective for relief from Stamp Duty.
Held: Though the company succeeded on two points, it failed because the legislation had not at the time been complete, and a claim as an RTE company for relief was not yet available: ‘the relief afforded by section 74 is not available unless and until the executive implements the relevant provisions of the 2002 Act . . the terms of section 74(1) confer relief conditionally on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the later subsections. In that respect, they are unlike the unconditional formulae used in, for example, section 60 and 64. They are also unlike the other conditional formulae used in, for example, section 61 and 65. Parliament must, I think, be taken to have been aware that, for whatever reason, the amending provisions of the 2002 Act had not, for the most part, been implemented at the time section 74 of the Finance Act 2003 was enacted. In those circumstances, the natural reading of section 74(1) is that the relief for which the section provides was intended to be available as and when the amending provisions of the 2002 Act had been brought into force; whenever that might be.’

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch
[2008] EWHC 2828 (Ch), [2009] STC 682, [2009] BTC 7009, [2008] STI 2317, [2008] 42 EG 166
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 74, Leasehold Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromElizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SCIT 26-Nov-2007
SCIT STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – reliefs – collective enfranchisement by leaseholders – whether the chargeable transaction entered into by the Appellant was ‘a chargeable transaction entered into by an RTE company in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty, Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.374395

Prudential Insurance Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1904

Contract for payment of sum on event

The Insurance company provided endowment insurance polices. They disagreed with the Commissioners as to whether these were policies of insurance and thus as to how they fell to be stamped. Life insurance was defined in the 1891 Act as ‘insurance upon any life or lives or upon any event or contingency relating to or depending upon any life or lives.’ The instrument that was to be presented for stamping in that case was the policy of insurance and ‘Policy of insurance’ was defined to mean ‘every writing whereby any contract of insurance is made’.
Held: Channell J defined a contract of insurance: ‘It seems to me that for the purpose of determining whether that contract comes within the definition [of life insurance] we must look at it as a whole, and not split it up into two separate parts . . Whereby for some consideration, usually but not necessarily for periodical payments called premiums, you secure for yourself some benefit, usually but not necessarily the payment of a sum of money, upon the happening of some event . . A contract of insurance, then, must be a contract for the payment of a sum of money, or for some corresponding benefit such as the rebuilding of a house or the repairing of a ship, to become due on the happening of an event, which event must have some amount of uncertainty about it, and must be of a character more or less adverse to the interest of the person effecting the insurance.’

Channell J
[1904] 2 KB 658
Stamp Act 1891
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDepartment of Trade and Industry v St Christopher Motorists Association Ltd 1974
The defendant company provided for the hire of a chauffeur if the insured was disqualified from driving.
Held: Contracts of insurance are not confined to contracts for the payment of money, but may include a contract for some benefit . .
CitedDigital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd v The Financial Services Authority CA 29-Nov-2011
Parties appealed against on order for the winding up of the company. The Authority (FSA) had said that the company which supplied warranties to owners of digital receiver boxes were providing regulated insurance services, but that the companies were . .
CitedDigital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Another v Financial Services Authority SC 13-Feb-2013
The appellants challenged an order for the dissolution of their company under the 2000 Acts. They had provided warranties for assorted consumer electrical goods which amounted to insurance, but said that they were not required to be registered under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471980

Commissioners for Inland Revenue v Angus: CA 14 Jun 1881

The court was asked whether an agreement for sale of property in the shape of goodwill amounted to a conveyance of the property for stamp duty purposes under section 70 of the 1870 Act.
Held: It did not.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The first thing to be noticed is, that the thing which is made liable to the duty is an ‘ instrument’. If a contract of purchase and sale, or a conveyance by way of purchase and sale, can be, or is, carried out without an instrument, the case is not within the section, and no tax is imposed. It is not the transaction of purchase and sale which is struck at; it is the instrument whereby the purchase and sale are effected which is struck at. And if anyone can carry through a purchase and sale without an instrument, then the legislature have not reached that transaction. The next thing is that it is not every instrument which may be brought into being in the course of a transaction of purchase and sale which is struck at. It is the instrument ‘whereby any property upon the sale thereof is legally or equitably transferred’. The taxation is confined to the instrument whereby the property is transferred. The transfer must be made by the instrument. If a transfer requires something more than an instrument to carry it through, then the transaction is not struck at, and the instrument is not struck at because the property is not transferred by it.’

Lord Evershed MR
[1889] 23 QBD 579
Stamp Act 1870 70
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 4-Nov-1959
The taxpayer and her son owned through a trust the entire beneficial interest in the shares of a company. She agreed to transfer other shares to him in return for his interest in the shares subject to the trust, releasing the trust. The Revenue . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.268059

Oakes v Commissioner of Stamp Duties of New South Wales: PC 1953

oakes_csdnswPC1954

A father made a gift of land in favour of himself and his four children in equal shares but then retained wide powers of management for which he reserved the right to charge remuneration.
Held: The donor was entirely excluded from the subject-matter of the gift, which was the four fifths interest given to the children, and that his retention of powers of management did not affect the matter. This was because the donor is entirely excluded if he only holds the property in a fiduciary capacity and deals with it in accordance with his fiduciary duty. But the right to charge remuneration was a different matter. This amounted to a benefit to the donor by contract or otherwise.
Lord Reid referred to St Aubin and said: ‘it is now clear that it is not sufficient to bring a case within the scope of these sections to take the situation as a whole and find that the settlor has continued to enjoy substantial advantages which have some relation to the settled property ; it is necessary to consider the nature and source of each of these advantages and determine whether or not it is a benefit of such a kind as to come within the scope of the section’

Lord Reid
[1954] AC 57, [1953] 2 All ER 92
Citing:
CitedSt Aubyn v Attorney General HL 12-Jul-1951
The donor exercised powers of appointment ‘to make some part of the settled property his own’, and it was ‘wholly irrelevant that by a contemporaneous or later transaction he surrenders his life interest in other parts of it’. The different parts of . .

Cited by:
CitedIngram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
CitedIn re Nichols, deceased CA 2-Jan-1975
The father, Lord Nichols, gave property to his sons who then leased it back to him. On the father’s death the revenue claimed duty.
Held: Goff LJ: ‘Having thus reviewed the authorities, we return to the question what was given, and we think . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.223763

Robin Alexis Justin Keston, Helen Janet Keston v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 27 Jan 2004

The claimants sought to reduce liability for stamp duty by arranging an intermediate sale to a company followed by a scheme of regular payments.
Held: The scheme was not effective to save stamp duty. The combined effect of the sections was to impose the liability for duty on the considerations paid by both the purchaser company and the sub-purchaser. As a matter of principle a conveyanc by a vendor to a subpurchaser was chargeable to duty by reference both to the consideration moving from purchaser to vendor and to the consideration moving from subpurchaser to purchaser.

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
[2004] EWHC 59 (Ch), Times 12-Feb-2004
Bailii
Stamp Act 1891 56(2) 58(4) 58(7)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedOughtred v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 4-Nov-1959
The taxpayer and her son owned through a trust the entire beneficial interest in the shares of a company. She agreed to transfer other shares to him in return for his interest in the shares subject to the trust, releasing the trust. The Revenue . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.192293

Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 13 Jun 2018

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 FTTTxProject 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 UTTCProject 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 . .
CitedVestey 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 . .
CitedHM 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 . .
CitedRevenue 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 . .
CitedMacNiven (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 . .
CitedDV3 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 . .
CitedBarclays 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

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, section 71A – Interpretation and application of anti-avoidance provisions in Finance Act 2003, sections 75A and 75B – Identification of ‘V’ and ‘P’ for the purposes of section 75A – Interpretation of section 75A(7) – The chargeable consideration pursuant to section 75B – Was the notional land transaction pursuant to section 75A notifiable under section 77? – Interpretation of land transaction return served by Appellant – Effect of closure notice served by HMRC – Procedural matters
[2014] UKUT 564 (TCC), [2015] STC 745, [2015] STI 244, [2015] BTC 501
Bailii
Finance Act 2003 45(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTxProject 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 . .

Cited by:
At UTTCProject 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 . .
At UTTCProject Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.558973

L M Tenancies 1 Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 4 Feb 1998

The stamp duty payable on a lease is calculated according to the values known at the date of the lease in accordance with the formula provided.
Times 04-Feb-1998, Gazette 11-Feb-1998
Finance Act 1994 242
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromL M Tenancies 1 Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 11-Jul-1996
Stamp duty not mitigated where consideration ascertainable when lease was executed. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toL M Tenancies 1 Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 11-Jul-1996
Stamp duty not mitigated where consideration ascertainable when lease was executed. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.82879

Prunus (Free Movement Of Capital): ECJ 9 Dec 2010

ECJ Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Tax on the ownership of immovable property situated in a Member State – Immovable property belonging to a legal person – Rules governing exemption from the tax which differentiate according to whether a company has its effective seat in a Member State or in a third country – Application of the principle of free movement of capital to overseas countries and territories – Interpretation of Decisions 91/482/EEC and 2001/822/EC.
C-384/09, [2010] EUECJ C-384/09 – O, [2011] EUECJ C-384/09
Bailii, Bailii
European

Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.427335

Commission v Hungary C-253/09: ECJ 9 Dec 2010

ECJ (Free Movement Of Persons) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement – Tax on transfers of property for consideration – Residential property – Tax legislation of a Member State granting the purchaser of real property for residential use, for the purpose of calculating the basis of assessment, the possibility of deducting the market value of another residential property sold within one year before or after the purchase, if that property is situated in the territory of that Member State – No discrimination.
[2010] EUECJ C-253/09 – O
Bailii
European

Updated: 03 March 2021; Ref: scu.427317

Fortum Project Finance: ECJ 5 Jul 2007

Europa (Free Movement Of Capital) Article 56(1) EC Directive 69/335/EEC Article 12(1)(a) and (c) Exception to the prohibition on double taxation of contributions of capital Contribution of capital in the form of shares to a company established in another Member State Exchange of shares Capital transfer tax
C-240/06, [2007] EUECJ C-240/06
Bailii
European

Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.258201

Mounsey v Stephenson: 9 Nov 1827

Articles of agreement, whereby one party agreed to pay the other a fixed salary, and the other agreed not to set up a chemist’s shop within a certain distance, and the parties were mutually bound in a penalty of 6001. to perform the agreement:
Held, to require a stamp of 11. 15s.
References: [1827] EngR 735, (1827) 7 B and C 403, (1827) 108 ER 773
Links: Commonlii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.324489

M and G Securities Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: Schroder Unit Trusts Ltd v Same: ChD 2 Feb 1999

The terms of the deed of trust under which units were surrendered in return for transfer of investments and cash from the underlying trust, allowed the trustees to reclaim the stamp duty paid on the surrender documents.
References: Times 02-Feb-1999
Statutes: Finance Act 1946 54(4)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.83248

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller and Co Margarine: HL 1901

The House considered the liability, or not, to stamp duty of an agreement made in the UK. Under the Stamp Act 1891 an agreement made in the UK for the sale of any estate or interest in any property except lands or property locally situate out of the UK was chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty. The particular agreement was for the sale of the premises of a wholesale manufacturing business which was carried on in Germany together with the goodwill of the business, all of whose customers were in Germany.
Held: The goodwill was property locally situate outside the UK. Lord Macnaghten said: ‘It is very difficult, as it seems to me, to say that goodwill is not property. Goodwill is bought and sold every day. It may be acquired, I think, in any of the different ways in which property is usually acquired. When a man has got it he may keep it as his own. He may vindicate his exclusive right to it if necessary by process of law. He may dispose of it if he will – of course under the conditions attaching to property of that nature.’ and
‘What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of a good name, reputation, and connection of business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old established business from a new business at its first start. The goodwill of a business must emanate from a particular centre or source. However widely extended or diffused its influence may be, goodwill is worth nothing unless it has a power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates. Goodwill is composed of a variety of elements. It differs in its composition in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade.’
Lord Lindley said: ‘Goodwill regarded as property has no meaning except in connection with some trade, business, or calling. In that connection, I understand the word to include whatever adds value to the business by reason of the situation, name and reputation, connection, introduction to old customers, and agreed absence from competition, or any of these things, and there may be others which do not occur to me. In this wide sense, goodwill is inseparable from the business to which it adds value, and, in my opinion, exists where the business is carried on. Such business may be carried on in one place or country or in several, and if in several there may be several businesses, each having a goodwill of its own.’
Lord Robertson said: ‘I do not accede to the view that the goodwill is affixed or attached to the manufactory. Supposing that the products of the manufactory were all exported to England and sold to English customers, I should find it difficult to hold that the goodwill was out of England merely because the manufactory was. The application of the words ‘locally situate’ would then present a different question, requiring, I should think, a different answer. Again, if the facts as to the distribution of the products were more complicated, as, for example, if the trade were diffused over England and other countries, then the location of the goodwill would be a more complex, although I do not by any means think an insoluble, problem.
I confess I find no repugnancy in affirming of the goodwill of a business that it is locally situate somewhere. It is, I should say, locally situate within the geographical limits which comprehend the seat of the trade, and the trade. That sounds like a very cautious statement, and fortunately it is enough for the present question. It seems to me that in the statute the distinction drawn is between what from a British point of view we should call British property and foreign property; and the goodwill of a business which begins and ends abroad is, I think, property locally situate outside the United Kingdom.’
References: [1901] AC 217
Judges: Lord Macnaghten, Lord Lindley, Lord Robertson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Condliffe and Another v Sheingold CA 31-Oct-2007
    The defendant had taken an assignment of the goodwill of a restaurant from the company of which she was a director. The plaintiffs as assignees of any claims of the company, now in liquidation, said that she was liable to account to them for the . .
    (, [2007] EWCA Civ 1043)
  • Cited – Hotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-2010
    The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the . .
    (, [2010] EWCA Civ 110)
  • Cited – The Athletes’ Foot Marketing Associates Inc v Cobra Sports Ltd ChD 1980
    The plaintiff, which carried on a retail shoe franchising business mainly in the United States, had prospective franchisee in England but had not commenced trading there. There was an awareness in England of the plaintiff’s trade name and activities . .
    ([1980] RPC 343)
  • Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
    The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
    ([2015] ETMR 31, [2015] ECC 19, , [2015] UKSC 31, [2015] WLR(D) 229, [2015] 1 WLR 2628, , , [2015] 3 All ER 469, [2015] FSR 29,#, UKSC 2013/0274, , )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.260189

Swallow Hotels Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 11 Jan 2000

A lease had been granted with an option to take a further term at a later date. New rules came into effect which imposed higher rates of stamp duty on transactions of the nature granted by the option, but exempted transactions entered into pursuant to a contract made before the operative date.
Held: The grant of the option in the lease was such a contract. It was not that when the option was exercised, the contract came into existence.
References: Times 11-Jan-2000
Statutes: Finance (No 2) Act 1997 49(6)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89649

L M Tenancies 1 Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 11 Jul 1996

Stamp duty not mitigated where consideration ascertainable when lease was executed.
References: Times 11-Jul-1996
Statutes: Stamp Act 1891 1
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – L M Tenancies 1 Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 4-Feb-1998
    The stamp duty payable on a lease is calculated according to the values known at the date of the lease in accordance with the formula provided. . .
    (Times 04-Feb-98, Gazette 11-Feb-98)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – L M Tenancies 1 Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 4-Feb-1998
    The stamp duty payable on a lease is calculated according to the values known at the date of the lease in accordance with the formula provided. . .
    (Times 04-Feb-98, Gazette 11-Feb-98)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82881

Inland Revenue v Maple and Co (Paris) Ltd: HL 27 Nov 1907

One English company transferred to another English company certain property in France by a deed of ‘apport’ executed in France according to the formalities of French law, the price of the property being payable in shares of the purchasing company.
Held that the deed was a ‘conveyance on sale’ within the meaning of section 54 of the Stamp Act 1891, and as such chargeable with stamp duty.
References: [1907] UKHL 968
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Atkinson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.622315

London and India Dock Co v Attorney General: HL 8 May 1908

A company with an issue of debenture stock already in existence re-arranged the stock and modified the rights of the holders under the authority of a private Act. The stock was divided into two new classes, ‘A’ and ‘B,’ and existing stock-holders obtained certificates for a quantity of each class, proportionate to their original holdings, upon delivering up the old certificates.
Held that this amounted to an issue of debenture stock under the Finance Act 1899, sec. 8, and that the company was bound to deliver a statement thereof bearing the appropriate stamp-duty
References: [1908] UKHL 682
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Atkinson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621510

Speyer Brothers v Inland Revenue: HL 22 Jan 1908

Where a document is by its statutory description chargeable under the Stamp Act as a ‘promissory note,’ and also as a ‘marketable security,’ the Crown has a choice whether it will charge it under the one or the other description. In other words, by virtue of the Act the Crown is entitled to charge the higher rate of stamp, but cannot charge both rates upon the same document.
Terms of a document held to be both a ‘promissory note’ and a ‘marketable security.’
References: [1908] UKHL 972
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, and Atkinson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621491

Underground Electric Railway Co of London v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 15 Dec 1905

Sec. 56 (2) of the Stamp Act 1891 provides as follows:-‘Where the consideration, or any part of the consideration, for a conveyance on sale consists of money payable periodically for a definite period exceeding twenty years or in perpetuity, or for any indefinite period not terminable with life, the conveyance is to be charged in respect of that consideration with ad valorem duty on the total amount which will or may, according to the terms of sale, be payable during the period of twenty years next after the day of the date of the instrument.’
/>
By an agreement by which a company’s business was sold it was provided that part of the consideration payable to the sellers was to be the annual payment out of profits of a sum equal to a dividend of 3 per cent. on the amount for the time being paid up on such of the original ordinary share capital in the new company as should for the time being have been issued; such payment was however postponed to the payment of a cumulative annual dividend of 5 per cent. to the ordinary shareholders. At the date of the agreement the whole ordinary share capital had been issued, but only about a quarter of it paid up.
Held that under sec. 56 ad valorem duty fell to be paid on a sum representing 3 per cent. on the amount of ordinary share capital paid up at the time of the agreement (that being ‘money payable periodically . . in perpetuity, or for an indefinite period . . ‘) multiplied by twenty, and that it was immaterial that the amount payable periodically was subject to the contingency of there being sufficient funds to pay the 5 per cent. dividend.
Per Lord Lindley-‘There is nothing in sec. 57 which either cuts down or excludes sec. 56.’
References: [1905] UKHL 576, 43 SLR 576
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Robertson and Lindley
Statutes: Stamp Act 1891 56(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621200

Lumsden v Inland Revenue: HL 20 Jul 1914

The Finance (1909-10) Act 1910, sec. 2 (2), enacts-‘The site value of the land on the occasion on which increment value duty is to be collected shall be taken to be (a) where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee-simple of the land, the value of the consideration for the transfer . . subject . . to the like deductions as are made, under the provisions of this part of this Act as to valuation, for the purpose of arriving at the site value of land from the total value.’
Held, by Lord Chancellor Haldane and Lord Shaw, upholding a decision of the Court of Appeal, that the ‘like deductions’ were deductions calculated from a gross value and total value ascertained by valuation as provided in section 25, not ascertained by reference to the consideration, dissenting Lord Moulton and Lord Parmoor, who held that such gross value and total value should be ascertained by reference to the consideration.
References: [1914] UKHL 154, 52 SLR 154
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Haldane), Lord Shaw, Lord Moulton, and Lord Parmoor
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620726

Hill Residential Ltd and Latimer Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Feb 2018

Stamp Duty Land Tax : Land Transaction Return – failure to file return by filing date – was penalty determination made automatically valid – whether reasonable excuse – appeal allowed.
References: [2018] UKFTT 39 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.604371

Lloyd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Nov 2017

Stamp Duty : Land Tax – SDLT -discovery assessment – whether disclosure letters made HMRC aware of insufficiency – no – whether assessments served on appellant or at usual or last known place of residence – yes – appeal dismissed
References: [2017] UKFTT 828 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 November 2020; Ref: scu.600963

Frosh and Others v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 8 Aug 2017

(Stamp Duty Land Tax) STAMP DUTY LAND TAX (SDLT) – Project Blue scheme – enquiries into land transaction returns – FA 2003, Sch 10 – applications for closure notices – refused by the First-tier Tribunal, [2016] UKFTT 558 (TC), on ground that HMRC had not been provided with information and documents – provision of information and documents in sample cases – invitations to settle.
References: [2017] UKUT 320 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 November 2020; Ref: scu.595594

Immobilien Linz Gmbh and Co Kg v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr: ECJ 1 Dec 2011

ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (First Chamber)) Taxation – Directive 69/335/EEC – Indirect taxes – Raising of capital – Article 4(2)(b) – Transactions subject to capital duty – Increase in the assets of a company – Contribution made by a member – Absorption of losses by virtue of an undertaking given before the losses were sustained
References: ECLI:EU:C:2011:800, [2011] EUECJ C-492/10
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 69/335/EEC
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 24 October 2020; Ref: scu.569579

APVCO 19 Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury and Another: CA 30 Jun 2015

The primary issue in this case is whether certain retrospective tax legislation should be declared to be incompatible with the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 648, [2015] STI 2021, [2015] WLR(D) 279, [2015] BTC 26, [2015] STC 2272
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Black, Floyd, Vos LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11 October 2020; Ref: scu.549746

Portland Gas Storage Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 17 Jun 2014

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – jurisdiction of the First-tier Tax Tribunal – whether Respondents made a decision giving rise to a right of appeal – yes – paragraphs 6, 12, 23, 24 and 35 Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003 – appeal allowed
References: [2014] UKUT 270 (TCC), [2014] BTC 520, [2014] STI 2406, [2014] STC 2589
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 03 October 2020; Ref: scu.534516

The Pollen Estate Trustees Ltd Kings College London v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 3 Aug 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 277 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J
Ratio: UTTC STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – Charities and Minister of the Crown relief – whether reliefs apply to interest in land acquired by a charity or Minister of the Crown as a tenant in common pursuant to a purchase made through a bare trustee on behalf of the charity or Minister and other non-charitable or Crown joint owners – No FA2003 sections 42 to 44,48 ,49,55, 75A, 76,77,85,103,107,117 and Schedules 8 and 16.
Statutes: Finance Act 2003
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – The Pollen Estate Trustee Company Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 753, [2013] 1 WLR 3785, [2013] STC 1479, [2013] 3 All ER 742, [2013] WLR(D) 255, [2013] BTC 606, [2013] 27 EG 91, [2013] WTLR 1593, [2013] STI 2298, WLRD)
    The court was asked ‘If a charity acquires property in furtherance of its charitable purposes, or as an investment, it is entitled to relief against liability to pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the purchase price.’
    Held: The modern approach . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 29-Aug-16
Ref: 466691

Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd; 4 Dec 2003

References: [2003] HKCFA 52, [2004] 1 HKLRD 77, (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517, ACV 4/2003
Links: Hklii
Coram: Ribeiro PJ, Lord Millett NPJ
Ratio: (Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of interest for the purpose of computing the taxpayer’s assessable profits and allowable deductions.
Held: The resolution of that question depended on the proper accountancy treatment of capitalised interest.
Ribeiro PJ said: ‘The . . preferable, view is that the Ramsay principle does not espouse any specialised principle of statutory construction applicable to tax legislation, whatever its language, but continues to assert the need to apply orthodox methods of purposive interpretation to the facts viewed realistically. In common with Lord Hoffman in MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2003] 1 AC 311 . . I am of the view that Lord Brightman’s formulation in not a principle of construction, but, as stated above, a decision that the Court is entitled, for fiscal purposes, to disregard intermediate steps having no commercial purpose as a consequence of an orthodox exercise of purposive statutory construction.’ and ‘Accordingly, the driving principle in the Ramsay line of cases continues to involve a general rule of statutory construction and an unblinkered approach to the analysis of the facts. The ultimate question is whether the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, were intended to apply to the transaction, viewed realistically.’
Lord Millett NPJ said: ‘Both profits and losses therefore must be ascertained in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting as modified to conform with the Ordinance. Where the taxpayer’s financial statements are correctly drawn in accordance with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting and in conformity with the Ordinance, no further modifications are required or permitted. Where the taxpayer may properly draw its financial statements on either of two alternative bases, the Commissioner is both entitled and bound to ascertain the assessable profits on whichever basis the taxpayer has chosen to adopt. He is bound to do so because he has no power to alter the basis on which the taxpayer has drawn its financial statements unless it is inconsistent with a provision of the Ordinance. But he is also entitled to do so, with the result that the taxpayer is effectively bound by its own choice, not because of any estoppel, but because it is the Commissioner’s function to make the assessment and for the taxpayer to show that it is wrong.’ and . .
‘the subject is to be taxed by the legislature and not by the courts’.
This case cites:

  • Restated – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL ([1981] 1 All ER 865, [1982] AC 300, Bailii, [1981] UKHL 1, [1981] STC 174)
    The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
    Held: If the true nature . .
  • Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL (Gazette 15-Feb-01, Times 14-Feb-01, House of Lords, Bailii, [2001] UKHL 6, [2001] 1 All ER 865, (2001) 73 TC 1, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [2003] 1 AC 311)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson (HM Inspector of Taxes) HL (Bailii, House of Lords, [2004] UKHL 51, [2004] 76 TC 446, [2005] 1 All ER 97, [2005] 1 AC 684, [2005] STC 1, [2004] 3 WLR 1383, [2004] BTC 414, 76 TC 446, [2004] STI 2435, 7 ITL Rep 383, Bailii, [2004] UKHL TC_76_446)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Campbell v Inland Revenue Commissioners SCIT (Bailii, [2004] UK SPC00421, [2004] STC (SCD) 396)
    SCIT INCOME TAX – Anti-Avoidance – Relevant discounted security – Loss on gift to wife – Subscription for security and gift part of scheme to produce loss – Avoidance not the Appellant’s sole purpose in . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 03-Aug-16
Ref: 220504

Attwood v Small And Others; 8 Nov 1827

References: [1827] EngR 729, (1827) 7 B & C 390, (1827) 108 ER 768 (B)
Links: Commonlii
This case cites:

  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small And Others (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 659, (1827) 3 Car & P 208, (1827) 172 ER 389)
    An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
    Held: That although with the clause referred . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 853, (1827) 2 Y & J 72, (1827) 148 ER 837 (A))
    Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly . .
  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (Commonlii, [1828] EngR 545, (1828) 2 Y & J 512, (1828) 148 ER 1021 (B))
    Amendment of pleadings . .
  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (, Commonlii, [1832] EngR 776, (1831-1832) You 407, (1832) 159 ER 1051)
    Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small and Others HL (Bailii, [1838] UKHL J14, 7 ER 684, Bailii, [1838] UKHL J60)
    The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
    Held: . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small etc (, Commonlii, [1838] EngR 515, (1835-40) 6 Cl & Fin 232, (1838) 7 ER 684)
    . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small (, Commonlii, [1840] EngR 125, (1840) 1 Man & G 279, (1840) 133 ER 340)
    . .

Attwood v Small And Others; 9 Aug 1827

References: [1827] EngR 659, (1827) 3 Car & P 208, (1827) 172 ER 389
Links: Commonlii
An agreement, contained by itself less than 1080 words, but there was in it a stipulation that a clause in a previous agreement, which was duly stamped, should be taken as part of the new agreement.
Held: That although with the clause referred to, there would be more than 1080 words, a £1 stamp was proper, as that clause ought not to be reckoned.
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small And Others (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 729, (1827) 7 B & C 390, (1827) 108 ER 768 (B))
    . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small (Commonlii, [1827] EngR 853, (1827) 2 Y & J 72, (1827) 148 ER 837 (A))
    Where a great number of exceptions were taken to an answer, and shortly before the argument the defendant submitted to answer them, in consequence of which, it was urged, that the answer was clearly evasive, and that the ordinary costs were greatly . .
  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (Commonlii, [1828] EngR 545, (1828) 2 Y & J 512, (1828) 148 ER 1021 (B))
    Amendment of pleadings . .
  • See Also – Small And Others -v- Attwood And Others (, Commonlii, [1832] EngR 776, (1831-1832) You 407, (1832) 159 ER 1051)
    Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small and Others HL (Bailii, [1838] UKHL J14, 7 ER 684, Bailii, [1838] UKHL J60)
    The plaintiffs had bought land including iron mines from the defendants. They sought and were given explicit re-assurances about the mine’s capacity, but these proved false after the plaintiffs had begun to work the mine themselves.
    Held: . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small etc (, Commonlii, [1838] EngR 515, (1835-40) 6 Cl & Fin 232, (1838) 7 ER 684)
    . .
  • See Also – Attwood -v- Small (, Commonlii, [1840] EngR 125, (1840) 1 Man & G 279, (1840) 133 ER 340)
    . .

Kalatara Holdings Ltd v Benedict Thomas Andersen and Another; Chd 25 Jan 2008

References: [2008] EWHC 86 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Evans-Lombe J
The claimant sought specific performance of a contract to buy land from the defendant. The defendant sought summary dismissal of the claim and forfeiture of the deposit. It had been intended that the property would be ‘rolled over’ on a sub-sale. The owner refused to execute a transfer into the name of the eventual purchaser.
Held: The arrangements would have been possible, and the defendants’ failure amounted to a breach of contract. The defendants were not entitled to rescind the contract and forfeit the deposit.
Statutes: Finance Act 2003 45, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 2(1)(A)
This case cites:

  • Cited – Union Eagle Limited -v- Golden Achievement Limited PC (Times 07-Feb-97, Bailii, [1997] UKPC 5, [1997] 2 WLR 341, [1997] AC 514, [1997] 2 All ER 215)
    (Hong Kong) The parties had contracted with each other for the sale of land. Completion was to take place on the appointed day at 5:00pm. A ten per cent deposit had been paid, and time had been made of the essence. The seller sought to rescind the . .
  • Cited – Redwell Investments Ltd -v- 1-3 Cuba Street Ltd CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1799)
    Lord Justice Chadwick considered what was meant by actual completion: ‘I accept, of course, that there is no absolute rule that completion takes place when title is transferred . . We were referred to no case in which it has been held that . .
  • Cited – Aero Properties Ltd and Another -v- Citycrest Properties Ltd and Another ChD (Gazette 21-Feb-02, [2000] 2 P&CR 21)
    Contracts were entered into for the sale of five flats. Completion of each contract was conditional upon simultaneous completion of the others. Completion did not occur, and the defendant sellers issued a notice to complete, then rescinded the . .