The CIOT has written to HMRC to ask whether partial relief from
SDLT will be available where the members of an LLP are a mixture of qualifying
and non-qualifying housebuilding companies.
In previous
correspondence, HMRC confirmed that relief would be available for a
housebuilder LLP operating a qualifying part-exchange scheme where all members
of the LLP (or partners in a partnership) were housebuilding companies, as a
result of the ‘look through’ provisions in FA 2003 Sch 15 para 2.
The question
arises following Pollen Estate Trustee Co Ltd v HMRC [2013] STC
1479,
where the Court of Appeal held that FA 2003 Sch 8 para 1(1) should be construed
as providing that a land transaction was exempt from charge to the extent that
the purchaser was a charity, providing that other relevant conditions were met,
and that exemption would apply to ‘that proportion of the beneficial interest
that is attributable to the undivided share held by the charity for qualifying
charitable purposes’. This was an important distinction, meaning that an amount
of relief was available even though not all the trust beneficiaries in the case
were charities.
The CIOT has written to HMRC to ask whether partial relief from
SDLT will be available where the members of an LLP are a mixture of qualifying
and non-qualifying housebuilding companies.
In previous
correspondence, HMRC confirmed that relief would be available for a
housebuilder LLP operating a qualifying part-exchange scheme where all members
of the LLP (or partners in a partnership) were housebuilding companies, as a
result of the ‘look through’ provisions in FA 2003 Sch 15 para 2.
The question
arises following Pollen Estate Trustee Co Ltd v HMRC [2013] STC
1479,
where the Court of Appeal held that FA 2003 Sch 8 para 1(1) should be construed
as providing that a land transaction was exempt from charge to the extent that
the purchaser was a charity, providing that other relevant conditions were met,
and that exemption would apply to ‘that proportion of the beneficial interest
that is attributable to the undivided share held by the charity for qualifying
charitable purposes’. This was an important distinction, meaning that an amount
of relief was available even though not all the trust beneficiaries in the case
were charities.
