property special edition in this issue - pinsent masons · pdf fileproperty special edition 16...

In This Issue

Editor: Cathya Djanogly

People

Our perspective on recent cases• DanielReganvHMRC[2012]UKFTT570• FieldFisherWaterhousevHMRC(C-392/11)• NathanielDavidRodenandRebeccaCatherineRodenvHMRC[2012]UKFTT586

• HMRCvUKStorage[2012]UKUT359• HMRCvDV3RSLimitedPartnership[2012]UKUT399(TCC)• MarkYoungT/ATheStHelensvHMRC[2012]UKFTT702(TC)• SerePropertiesLimitedvHMRC[2013]UKFTT778

Recent Articles• CurrenttrendsinpropertyinvestmentstructuresbyJohnChristianandIanWarner

• AninterviewofIanHydeonAlbermarle4LLPvHMRC• ThetaxationofhighvalueUKresidentialpropertybyPaulDufty

Events 15

NewsandViewsfromthePinsentMasonsTaxteam

Combining the experience, resources and international reachof McGrigors and Pinsent Masons

PM-TaxIssue 1 Thursday 7 March 2013

Property Special Edition

16

12

5

Our Comment• ProcurementproposalsareboldbutclarityisneededbyJasonCollins

• Crossbordersupplies:thepitfallsofthereversechargebyStevenPorter

2

Pinsent Masons

From 1 April 2013, companies bidding for Government above-threshold contracts will have to self certify that

they have not been involved in certain types of tax avoidance.

Duringtheselectionstageoftheprocurementprocess,bidderswillbeaskedtoselfcertifytheirtaxcompliancebyconfirmingthattheyhavenothad‘occasionsofnon-compliance’withinadefinedperiod-proposedtobeanytimeinthelasttenyears.

Non-compliancewilloccur,inparticular,ifataxreturnisfoundtobeincorrectasaconsequenceofHMRevenue&Customs(HMRC)successfullytakingactionunderthenewGeneralAntiAbuseRule(GAAR),underanytargetedanti-avoidancerule(TAAR),orunderthe“Halifaxabuse”principle(whichappliesforVAT).Ratherworryingly,non-compliancewillalsooccurifthecompanyagreestoamenditsreturn.TheproposalcouldthereforeactasadeterrenttonegotiationandsettlementwithHMRC.AlargecorporateinadisputewithHMRCmaywellchoosetochallengeHMRC’s

interpretationoftaxrules,ratherthansettleandpotentiallyfaceaprocurementban.

Companieswitharecordof“non-compliance”willbeabletorelyonvariousmitigatingfactorstoarguetheirwayintoremaininginthebiddingprocess.However,thewidediscretiongiventocivilservantsinthosecircumstancesisexcessive.TheCabinetOfficeshouldspecifywhatmitigatingcircumstancesmightbeapplicable–theyshouldincludearecordofsettlingdisputeswithHMRCandmaintainingalowriskstatus.Otherwise,manycompanieswhichhavesettledwithHMRCovertaxavoidancedisputesandhavesinceactedingoodfaithcouldnowbebarredfromprocurementcontractsallthesamehavingadmittedtousingtaxavoidanceschemes.

Therearealsovariousissueswhichneedtobeclarifiedasamatterofurgency.Inparticular,theproposaldoesnotspecifywhethercompliancebyagrouporassociatedcompanieswillberelevant.Theguidanceshouldconfirmthatthenewruleswillbeinterpretedconsistentlywithother

areasofprocurementsothattheywillapplytothebiddingentitytogetherwithanyotherentityonwhoseresourcesthebidderintendstorely.

Thetechnicalscopeoftherulesalsorequiresclarification.AdefinitionofTAARsneedstobeaddedandtheapplicationoftherulestoforeignbiddersshouldbeworkedout.Otherwise,biddersfromjurisdictionswithsimplertaxsystemsandlimitedanti-avoidancerules,willbegivenasignificantcompetitiveadvantage.

Finally,havingatwo-weekconsultationperiodforsuchanimportantproposal,withfar-reachingconsequencesisludicrous.Muchmoretimeneedstobegiventodiscussingtheseproposals..

PM-Tax Property Special | Issue 1 Thursday 7 March 2013

2

Our Comment

Jason Collins isaPartnerintheLitigationandComplianceGroup,HeadoftheTaxgroupandalsoHeadofclientrelationshipsfortheFinancialServicesSector.

JasonisoneoftheleadingtaxpractitionersintheUK.HespecialisesintheresolutionofcomplexdisputeswithHMRevenue&CustomsinallaspectsofdirecttaxandVAT.

Email:[email protected]: +44(0)2070542727

Procurement proposals are boldbut clarity is needed JasonCollinscommentsontheGovernment’sproposaltomaketaxcompliancerelevanttotheprocurementprocess.

Pinsent Masons

The place of supply of services relating to land is where the land is located, but problems can arise

as to where the recipient of a supply “belongs” when using the reverse charge.

UsuallythepersonmakingasupplyisobligedtoaccounttotherelevanttaxauthorityfortheVATtheychargeinrelationtothatsupply.Thisisnotthecasehoweverwherethe“reversecharge”mechanismapplies–broadlybeingwhen:-

(i)thesupplyistreatedastakingplaceinadifferentmemberstatethanthatwithinwhichthesupplier“belongs”;and

(ii)therecipientofthatsupplyisa“relevantbusinesspersons”who“belongs”inthememberstateinwhichthesupplyismade.

Inthisscenario,whenthereversechargemechanismapplies,itistherecipientofthesupplythatshouldaccountfor

theVATarisingonthesupply.Wherethereversechargemechanismisnotinplay(i.e.therecipientisnotarelevantbusinesspersonswhobelongsinthememberstateofsupply)orisnotavailable,thesupplierwillneedtoregisterandaccountforVATinthememberstateinwhichthesupplytakesplace.

Thereversechargemechanismcancauseparticularissuesasregardsservices“relatingtoland”.Thisisbecausetheplaceofsupplyoflandrelatedservicesiswherethelandislocated(asopposedtothesupplierorrecipient)andthereforeunlessthereversechargemechanismappliesthesupplierwillberequiredtoVATregisterinthememberstatewherethepropertyissituated(iftheyhaven’talreadyandsubjecttoanyregistrationlimit).Suppliesrelatingtolandwillinclude(forexample)theservicesofsurveyors,engineersaswellasservicessuppliedintherepairormaintenanceofanybuilding.

Doesthereversechargeprocedureapply?Wheredoesmycustomerbelong?

Assumingthereversechargemechanismisavailableforuseinamemberstate,thekeytestsindeterminingwhetherthemechanismcanapply(andthesuppliertherebyavoidstheneedtoVATregister)arewhethertherecipientisarelevantbusinesspersonandtheybelonginthememberstatewherethesupplytakesplace.Itisusuallyquitestraightforwardtodeterminewhethertherecipientofasupplyisarelevantbusinesspersonbutdeterminingwheretherecipientbelongscangiverisetoanumberofissues.

Unfortunatelyobtainingtherecipient’sVATregistrationnumberdoesn’tdefinitivelyprove(certainlyintheeyesofHMRC)wheretherecipientbelongsandthereforewhetherthereversechargecanapply.Inthiscontext,mostproblemstendtoarisewheretherecipienthasoperationsinmorethanonememberstate.Itmaybethattherecipient“belongs”inmultiple


3

Our Comment

Steven Porter isaseniorassociatewhohasextensiveexperienceofcontentiousandnon-contentioustaxmatters.Hehasparticularexperienceinrelationtoadvising;litigating;andresolvingdisputeswithHMRConindirecttaxes(VAT,aggregateslevy,customsduty);propertytaxes(SDLT,VAT,CIS);andhighnetworthindividual’sUKresidencystatus.


Cross border supplies: the pitfalls of the reverse chargeByStevenPorter

Pinsent Masons

memberstatessuchthatasupplierisrequiredtochoosewhichoftherecipient’soperationsismostcloselyconnectedtothesupply.Thiswillrequireamultifactorialenquirytakingintoaccount,forexample,wheretheservicessuppliedareused,whoprovidestheinstructionsandwhichentityisthecontractingparty.Ifasuppliergetsitwrongandassumesthattherecipientdoesbelonginthememberstateofsupplyandthesupplierincorrectlytreatstheirsupplyasbeingwithinthereversechargemechanism(havingmadeanassumptionthatyouwouldhavethoughtwascorrect)thenthesupplierwillberequiredtoVATregisterinthememberstateofsupply,accountforoutputtaxontheirsuppliestotherecipientandpotentiallypaypenaltiesandinterest.EquallythesupplierwillhavetoundotheentriesintheirVATreturns.

Themoralofthestory

Whenmakingsuppliesofservicesinrelationtoland,inordertoensureyouhavenoobligationtoaccountfortheVATonthatsupply,aswellasensuringtherecipientisVATregisteredinthe

memberstateofsupply,theplaceofbelongingrulesshouldbecarefullyconsidered.Ifitisnotclearwhethertherecipientbelongsinthememberstateornot,itwouldbeadvisabletoensurethatallinstructionscomefromasinglesource(e.g.therecipient’soverseasofficeinthememberstateofsupply)andthatitbeagreedwiththerecipientwhether(ornot)theywilloperatethereversecharge.GettingitwrongcouldmeanafailurebythesupplierandrecipienttocorrectlyaccountforVATgivingrise(potentially)tointerestandpenalties..

> continued from previous page


4

Our Comment

Cross border supplies: the pitfalls of the reverse charge (continued)

Pinsent Masons

Althoughthe UK property investment market still faces significant challenges, we are seeing fund

managers and investors looking at new investment projects.

Whereassomeinvestorsmaypreviouslyhaveacquiredanassetindividually,afeatureofthemarketisthatinvestorsareincreasinglylookingtoshareriskinrelationtoassets.Additionally,whereoncefundmanagershavebeenabletoraise“blind-pool”funds,currentmarketsentimentmeansweareseeinganincreaseinfundmanagerspre-choosingpropertyassetsthatarepackagedintoafundstructuresothatinvestorscanseeexactlywhatwillbeacquired.

Taxandregulatorydevelopmentshavebroughtinsomenewthemesandthisnotelooksbrieflyatsomeofthetrendsweareseeingintheinvestmentmarket.

UKindirectpropertyinvestmentstructureshavetraditionallybeenbasedonthreemainvehicles–limitedpartnerships,unittrusts(offshoreunittrustsorexemptunauthorisedunittrustsforexemptinvestors)andnon-UKresidentcompanies.AllthesevehiclesminimiseUK

taxliabilityatthevehiclelevelonincomeandgains,whetherasaresultoftaxtransparencyorbecausethevehicleisnon-UKtaxresident(thoughnon-residentvehiclesaresubjecttoincometaxonrentalprofits).Thedecisionastowhichvehicleisappropriateonaprojectwillbedrivenbythetypeofinvestors,whetherthevehicleisclosedoropenended,theinvestors’taxjurisdiction,theunderlyingassettypeandexitstrategiesamongstotherthings.

WeareseeingastrongerinterestinREITs(RealEstateInvestmentTrusts)andPAIFs(PropertyAuthorisedInvestmentFunds)asinvestmentvehicles.TheREITandPAIFregimesofferataxefficientmeansforinstitutionsandotherUKinvestorstoinvestinUKproperty.

AREITisaclosed-endedUKresidentcompanywhichwillbeexemptfromtaxonitsincomeandgainsfrompropertyinvestmentactivitiesprovidedanumberofconditionsaresatisfied.TheseincludethatsharesintheREITmustbeadmittedtotradingonarecognisedexchange(whichincludesAIM),gearingislimited,thattheREITdistributesatleast90%ofitsrentalprofitsandthatatleast75%ofitsincomeandassetsarerelatedtoinvestmentactivity.

Corporateshareholderswithmorethana10%holdingshouldnotreceivedividendsassuchdistributionswouldattractataxchargeintheREIT.

APAIFisanopenendedvehicle-inpractice,anopenendedinvestmentcompany(OEIC)-whichistaxexemptoninvestmentincomeandgainsaslongasconditionsonactivities,gearingandotherissuesaremet.TheconditionsaresimilartothoseapplyingtoREITsthoughthereareimportantdifferences.APAIFmustbeauthorisedbytheFSAasanauthorisedinvestmentfund.

Takeupoftheregimesfornewventures(asopposedtoconversionofexistingvehiclesinto,asappropriate,REITsorPAIFs)hasbeenslowbutanumberofdevelopmentsaregraduallymovinginvestorstowardsthesestructures.

Someofthethemesweareseeingfrominvestorsandfundmanagersinclude:

• Changes in REIT and PAIF regimes: theREITregimeinparticularhasbeenprogressivelychangedtomakeiteasierfornewvehiclestobelaunched.Thesechargesincludeabolitionofthe2%


5

Recent Articles

John Christian isapartnerandheadofourCorporateTaxTeam.Hespecialisesincorporateandbusinesstax,andadvisesonthetaxaspectsofUKandinternationalmergersandacquisitions,jointventuresandpartneringarrangements,privateequitytransactions,treasuryandfundingissues,propertytaxation,transactionsunderthePrivateFinanceInitiativeandVAT.


Ian Warner isapartnerandheadsthePinsentMasonsinvestmentfundspractice.Headvisesclientsonawiderangeofmattersrelatingtothestructuringandestablishmentofinvestmentfunds.Ianalsoactsforanumberofpensionfunds,fundsoffundsandotherinvestorswhenmakingfundinvestments.


Current trends in property investment structuresByJohnChristianandIanWarner

mailto:john.christian%40pinsentmasons.com?subject=PM-Tax%20Property%20Special


mailto:ian.warner%40pinsentmasons.com?subject=PM-Tax%20Property%20Special

mailto:ian.warner%40pinsentmasons.com?subject=PM-Tax%20Property%20Special

Pinsent Masons

conversioncharge,flexibilityonmeetingtheinvestmentconditionsinthefirst3years,allowingREITstobelistedonAIM(reducingcompliancecosts)andallowingshareholdingsofinstitutionalinvestorstobeignoredinapplyingtheclosecompanycondition.Thelatestdevelopmenttobeintroducedinthisyear’sFinanceActistoallowREITstocross-investinREITswhichmayopenuptheREITasajointventurevehicleinitsownright.

• Regulatory changes:TheFSAarecurrentlyconsultingonchangestothewayinwhichunregulatedcollectiveinvestmentschemes(UCIS)canbemarketedintheUK.Manyofthetraditionalstructures(referredtoabove)willbecategorisedasaUCISandwhilstthevehiclescannotbefreelymarketedtothepublicintheUKthecurrentruleshavetodateallowedpropertyfundstobemarketedtoappropriateindividualsandotherinvestors.Becauseofconcernthatsomeofthesefundshavebeenmarketedinappropriately,theFSAistighteningtherules.Whilstthefinaldetailhasnotyetbeensettled,thefactthatconsultationistakingplacehasalreadyledanumberofIFAstoruleoutmarketinganykindofUCISandthereforefundmanagersarehavingtoconsideralternativestructures.AnauthorisedfundsuchasaPAIFisnotaUCISandthereforeprovidesanattractiveoptionprovidedthePAIFcriteriacanbemet.Additionally,theEuropeanregulationknownastheAlternativeInvestmentFundManagersDirective(AIFMD)willcomeintoforcethissummer.Thisdirectivehasbeenthesourceofmuchdebateandcontroversyinthefundmanagementindustryandwillpotentiallyhaveaneffectonfundstructures.Ifamanageriscaughtbythedirectivetherewillbeincreasedregulatoryandongoingcompliancecostbothforthemanagerandinvestorsintherelevantfunds.Forsome

largerfundmanagersthismaymeanamovetooffshorestructurestoavoidmuchofAIFMDcompliancewhereassmallermanagersmayneedtoconsiderhowtheypassonorsharethecostsofcompliancewiththeirinvestors.

• SDLT issues: limitedpartnership(LP)investmentstructuresaresubjecttothecomplexSDLTregimeforpartnerships.Thiscanleadtopotential4%SDLTchargesonchangesinparticipationinanLPpropertyinvestmentvehicleoroncommercialtransactionssuchasonrefinancingorotherrestructuring.TheSDLTimplicationscaninfluencemanagersawayfromaLPstructure.Corporatevehicles(includingREITsandPAIFs)andunittrustsdonothavetheseSDLTissuesthoughcanhaveothertaximplications;forexample,unittrustsareoftennotacceptabletonon-UKinvestors.

• Market perception:insomecasesitisfeltthatinstitutionalinvestorsmaypreferaregulatedvehicle(REITorPAIF)andthatsuchastructuremaybemoremarketableandresistanttofuturechangesinlaw.Aregulatedvehiclemaybeseenashavingclearercorporategovernanceandtransparency,thoughthatofcoursewilldependontheapproachandreputationofthemanager.AstructurewithintheREITorPAIFregimemayalsobeseenaslesslikelytobesubjecttochangesintaxlaw.Althoughnon-UKvehicleshavebeenakeyfeatureoftheUKpropertyinvestmentmarketformanyyears,andmaystillbetheappropriatevehiclefornon-UKinvestorsinparticular,thechangedattitudesinrecentyearstowardsstructuresbasedinlowertaxedjurisdictionsmaybecomeaninfluenceoninvestorchoice.Anotherissueonnon-residentvehiclesistheUKincometaxchargeonrentalprofits.Theavailabilityofinterestdeductionsandcapitalallowancestoreducerentalprofitsreceivedbynon-UKresidentvehicleshavebeenreducedbythelowergearing

levelsinthepropertyindustryandthegradualerosionofcapitalallowances.

• Residential assets:oneoftheactiveassetclassescurrentlyisresidential.ThemainfocusisonhighvalueLondonpropertieswherethemodelofteninvolvesimprovementordevelopmentofassetsratherthanholdingpropertyforincome.Developmentactivitymaybetradingandstructuresneedtobeadaptedtotakeaccountofthis.REITandPAIFvehiclescannotbeusedwheretheactivityismainlydevelopment.The15%SDLT,AnnualResidentialPropertyTaxandCapitalGainsTaxrulesapplyingtohighvalueresidentialpropertiesheldby“non-natural”personsneedtobereviewedcloselywherethevalueofindividualassetsisoverthe£2mthreshold.ThedraftFinanceBillprovisionsincludeexemptionfromtheserulesforpropertylettinganddevelopmentandthepositionhereforfundstructuresisconsiderablybetterthanwhenthefirstdraftoftheseruleswereprepared.Theexemptionfromthe15%SDLTchargewill(onthecurrentdraftproposals),however,onlyapplywheretheeffectivedateisafterRoyalAssent.

• Social housing and market rental:DevelopinginstitutionalinvestmentinsocialhousingisakeyGovernmentaimasevidencedbytherecentconsultationonadaptingtheREITrulesinthisarea.AstheGovernment’sresponseidentified,themainbarriertoinstitutionalinvestmentinsocialhousingistheeconomicreturnratherthanthetypeofthevehicle.Wearehoweverseeingsomebuildtoletproposalscomingthroughfocussingonthemarketrentedsector.Sofar,thesehavebeenbasedonlimitedpartnershipstructuresanditwillbeinterestingtoseehowthisassetclasswilldevelop..


Recent Articles

Current trends in property investment structures (continued)


6

Pinsent Masons

What were the key features of the case?

Thecaseillustratesthedifficultiesindistinguishingbetweenpropertyinvestmentandtradingactivities.Thedifferenceisnoteasytospotandtaxpayersshouldensuretheykeepevidencetoprovetheirintentions.

InthecaseanLLPownedbytwomarriedcouplesandacompanyhaddisposedofthreepropertiesatalossandwasappealingagainstHMRC’streatmentofthelossesaspropertybusinessiecapitallosses.TheLLPcontendedthatthelossesweretradinglossesandsoavailableagainstthepartners’generalincome.Itwasacceptedthatthepartnershiphad“carriedonatradeprofessionorbusinesswithaviewtoprofit”.ThequestionfortheTribunalwaswhetherthepartners’activitiesinrelationtothethreepropertiesconstitutedaUKpropertybusiness,thisinturndependedonwhetherthepropertieshadbeenpurchasedforinvestmentpurposes(ascontendedbyHMRC)orfortradingpurposes(ascontendedbytheappellants).

ThetribunallookedatvariousfactstoestablishwhethertheLLPhadalwaysintendedtore-sellthepropertiesintheshortterm–andhadthereforebeentrading.SeveralelementsputforwardbytheLLPwereheldnottobedeterminative.Forinstance,thefactthatthepropertieswereboughtuntenanteddidnotpointtowardstradingorinvestmentasthepartnersmayhaveintendedtoletthepropertiestoincreasetheirre-salevaluesortoobtainarentalincome.Equally,theshorttermfinancialstructureoftheacquisitionofthepropertiesdidnotnecessarilysuggestanintentiontoholdthepropertiesforashorttimeonly.Thesameappliedtotheworkscarriedouttoimprovetheproperties.Thesewerejustasconsistentwithanintentiontofindtenantsaswithanintentiontofindbuyers.Priorhistoryofpropertydealingwasseentobeof“limitedhelp”aswastheLLP’saccountsandoriginaltaxreturnspreparedonaninvestmentbasis.ThetribunalfoundtheLLP’sevidencetobegenerallycredibleandreliedheavilyonalettercontemporaneoustothepurchaseofthepropertiesandwhichhadbeensent

byonepartnertotwootherpartners.Thisletterclearlysetouttheintentiontorealiseaprofitonthesaleofthepropertieswithinthreetosixmonths.Justasimportantly,theletterdidnotcontainanydetailontheyieldexpectedfromthelettingoftheproperties–suggestingthatthiswasnotthefocusofthetransaction.

Thetribunalfoundinfavourofthepartners.

What practical tips does this case give for commercial property buyers in relation to evidence of their intention to trade in property?

Taxpayersshouldalwaysbearinmindthattheburdenofproofinadisputewillbeonthetaxpayers.

AlthoughtheTribunalacceptedthatthepartnerswerecrediblewitnesses,itdidquestiontheirabilitytorecollecttransactionswhichhadtakenplaceseveryearsearlier.Inthiscontext,theletterreferredtoabovewaskeytothesuccessoftheappellants’case.


7

Ian HydeisaPartnerandspecialisesintaxlitigation,representingclientsinallaspectsoftaxriskandtaxdisputes,includingalternativedisputeresolution,appealingtotheTaxTribunalandthehighercourts,taxinvestigationsandintaxrelatedcommercialdisputesincludingtaxrelatedprofessionalindemnitymatters.Ianactsforawiderangeofclientsandonarangeofdirectandindirecttaxesincludingtaxavoidancestructures,VAT,customsduties,aggregateslevyandpensionstaxissues.

Email: [email protected]: +44(0)1216253267

An interview of Ian Hyde on Albermarle 4 LLP v HMRCTheinterviewwasfirstpublishedontheLexisNexiswebsiteon18February2013

Recent Articles

Pinsent Masons

However,it’sdifficulttoconcludeotherthanthetaxpayershadagenerousTribunal.Thefactsdidn’treallyhelpeitherwayandtherewerefewcontemporaneousdocumentsclearlysettingouttheLLP’sintentions.Iftheintentionshadbeenbetterdocumentedthetaxpayersmighthavebeensavedalotoftrouble.

How should lawyers approach partnership ‘discovery amendments’?

Thecasealsothrowsupanoddityinpartnershipassessmentswhichillustratesthatit’salwaysworthcheckingproceduralpointsonassessments.

ThetribunalhadtodecidewhetherHMRChadbeenentitledtomakeadiscoveryamendmenttothepartnershipreturn.Section29TMAdoesnotapplytopartnershipreturnssotherelevantprovisionwasSection30BTMA.

Section30Bonlyallowsadiscoveryamendmenttoapartnershipreturnwhen“profits”havenotbeenincludedorhavebeenunder-stated(orclaimsforreliefareexcessive).HMRCarguedthat“profits”canbeanegativefiguretojustifyanamendmenttothelosses

statedonthereturn.

TheTribunaldisagreedwithHMRC’sinterpretationpointingoutthatthelegislationdoesreferto“losses”whensuchlossesaremeanttobeincluded.HMRCwerethereforeinrespectofoneyearunderassessmentnotentitledtomakeadiscoveryamendment..


Recent Articles

An interview of Ian Hyde on Albermarle 4 LLP v HMRC (continued)


8

Pinsent Masons

The Government announced significant and costly changes to the taxation of high value residential

property in the March 2012 Budget and further details of these have now been published in advance of them becoming law later this year.

Therearethreemainproposalsintendedto“ensurethatindividualsandcompaniespayafairshareoftaxonresidentialproperty”.

WhilstthechangesoutlinedintheconsultationareaimedatrestrictingperceivedavoidanceofUKtaxesthroughownershipof‘highvalueresidentialproperty’inoffshorestructuresknownas‘enveloping’wedonotconsiderthattheywillnecessarilyachievethisoratleasttotheextentthattheGovernmenthopes.

Thenewproposalsaretargetingwealthyinvestorsandinparticularnon-UKdomiciledindividuals-whousetrustsandcompanystructurestoholdtheirUKresidentialproperty.Whilsttherearearangeofreasonswhysuchastructuremightbeused,

avoidingachargetoInheritanceTax(IHT)ondeathwascommonthroughtheuseofan‘ExcludedPropertyTrust’meaningthatthetrustcapital(e.g.highvalueresidentialproperty)isoutsidetheIHTnetcompletely.Similarly,asthetrusteesand/orcompanyarenon-UKresidenttheydonotsufferCapitalGainsTax(CGT)onadisposaloftheproperty.

TheintroductionofwhatwillbeanentirelynewbasisoftaxingUKresidentialpropertyheldincorporatestructureswillgiverisetoanumberoftechnicalandpracticalissuesfortaxpayersandwillinvolveafairdegreeofuncertainty,notleastbecausedraftlegislationwasonlyrecentlypublished.Thoseaffectedandtheiradviserswillneedtounderstandtheimpactofthenewmeasuresontheirexistingandanyproposednewstructuresandbereadytoalterthesestructureswherenecessary.

What are the New Measures?Keytounderstandinghowthenewruleswillworkistheconceptofa“non-natural person”.

AsmattersstandonlyaCompany(UKorforeign)willbeanon-naturalpersonalthoughpartnershipswherethereisacorporatememberandcollectiveinvestmentschemeswillbeincluded(seefurtherbelow).Atrustandapartnershipwillbetreatedasa“naturalperson”.

1. Alreadyinplace(from21March2012)isa15%rateofSDLTontheacquisitionsofresidentialpropertycostingmorethan£2millionbya‘non-naturalperson’.

2. From1April2013,anAnnualResidentialPropertyTax(ARPT)or‘annualcharge’onresidentialpropertyvaluedover£2millionwillbeleviedon‘nonnaturalpersons’.

3. From6April2013CapitalGainsTaxwillbeextendedtogainsonthedisposalofresidentialpropertyvaluedover£2millionbya‘nonnaturalperson’.

Definition of ‘non-natural person’ (NNP)TheannualchargeandextensiontotheCGTregimewillapplytothesamecategoriesofnon-naturalpersonsasthe15%rateofSDLTnamely:


9

Paul Dufty,aNewZealandqualifiedlawyer,isaseniortaxmanagerintheTaxteam.Hespecialisesininheritancetaxandcapitalgainstaxplanningandadvisesonawiderangeofissuesincluding;offshoretrusts,residenceanddomicileissues.

Email: [email protected]: +44(0)2070542548

The taxation of high value UK residential propertyByPaulDufty

Recent Articles

Pinsent Masons

• acompany(bothUKandoverseas)

• acollectiveinvestmentvehicle

• apartnership,whereoneormoremembersisacompany

Certainentitiesareexcludedfromthedefinitionincluding:

• Trustees,oracompanyactingasatrusteeofasettlement;

• Companiesactingasnomineeforthebeneficialownerwhoisanindividual;and

• Bonafidepropertydevelopmentandinvestmentcompanies.

SDLTWherethepurchaseofaUKresidentialpropertyinexcessof£2millionismadebyanon-naturalpersontherateofSDLTpayableonpurchaseis15%.Inallothercasesthe7%ratewillapplytopropertypurchasesofthisvalue.

Astrustsareexcludedfromthedefinitionofnon-naturalperson,thehigherrateapplicabletothepurchaseofahighvalueUKresidentialpropertybytrusteesdirectlywillbe7%.

AseriesofreliefswillexcludegenuinepropertydevelopmentandrentalcompaniesfromboththehigherSDLTrateandannualcharge.

Property Value SDLT Rate

<£125,000 0%

£125,001-£250,000

1%

£250,001-£500,000

3%

£500,000-£1,000,000

4%

£1,000,001-£2,000,000

5%

£2,000,001+ 7%1

£2,000,001+purchasedbycertainnon-naturalpersons

15%2

1IntroducedatBudget20122IntroducedatBudget2012

The Annual Residential Property Tax (ARPT) or ‘annual charge’TheGovernment’sobjectivewiththeARPTisto“ensurebeneficialownersofhighvalueresidentialpropertypaytheirfairshareoftaxandtotackleavoidance”.

Individualswhoholdpropertyinstructureswillneedtodecidewhether

totakethemoutbeforethenewchargestakeeffect,orcontinuetoholdthemwithinthecorporatevehicleandpaythecharge.

TheamountoftheARPTwilldependonthevalueofthepropertyon1April2012(orsubsequentpurchaseprice)inaccordancewiththetablebelow.ThefirstARPTchargewillariseon1April2013basedonthevalueofthepropertyat1April2012andthechargewillapplyforthefollowingfiveyears.

Propertieswillneedtobere-valuedevery5yearstodeterminethepropertyvaluationbandtheyfallinto.

TheARPTmustbepaidtoHMRCby15Aprileachyearalthoughtheduedateforpaymentforthefirstyearofchargeis1October2013.

Property Value Annual Charge 2012-13

£2m-£5m £15,000

£5m-£10m £35,000

£10m-£20m £70,000

£20m+ £140,000Note: The annual charge will be indexed linked.

Insomesituations,itmayinthelongertermsbecosteffectivetopaytheARPTwhencomparedtotheamountofIHTthatcouldbepayable(seebelow).

Extending the CGT regime to NNP’sCGTispayablebyUKresidentsonlyalthoughanti-avoidancelegislationcan,incertaincircumstances,treatgainsofnon-residenttrustsandcompaniesasaccruingtoUKresidentindividuals.

Gainsonthedisposalofhighvalueresidentialpropertybynon-naturalpersonswillbesubjecttoCGTat28%fromApril2013wherethepropertyhasbeenwithinthescopeofARPT.

ThenewchargetoCGTwillapplytodisposalsonorafter6thApril2013.ItwillresultinanincreasedexposuretotaxforUKcompanies(taxedat23%inthe2013/14taxyearand21%inthe2014/15taxyear).

What are the implications of these changes for existing structures?AnexistingstructurecanstillbeusedandwillremaineffectiveasameansofminimisingIHT.

Howeveritwillneedtoberecognisedthatfrom1April2013aminimumannualchargeof£15,000(rising


Recent Articles

The taxation of high value UK residential property (continued)


10

Pinsent Masons

to£140,000forpropertiesover£20m)willbepayableand,asmattersstand,aCGTchargewillariseonthefuturedisposaloftheproperty.

Revisingthestructuretoexcludeanon-naturalpersonwillavoidtheongoingARPTandCGTondisposalbutwillneedtobeplannedcarefully.InmanycasesmovingthepropertyoutofacompanywillbringthepropertywithintheIHTnetandwhilstrevisingthearrangementswillgiveanimmediatecashflowadvantagewhencomparedtotheARPTchargethismustbeconsideredinthecontextofanIHTchargeat40%onanassetthatshouldappreciateinvalueovertime.Socareisadvised.

Forexample,thepotentialIHTonapropertyvaluedat£20mis£8morequaltotheamountofannualchargepayableatcurrentratesfor57years.

Alsoasignificantissuewhenconsideringwhethertoreviseanexistingstructureiswhetherchangestothestructurecanbemadewithouttriggeringtaxcharges.Certainincometaxandcapitalgainsanti-avoidanceprovisionsmayapplyandthesewillneedtobecarefullyconsideredandquantifiedwhendecidingwhatcourseofactiontotake.

Whetherstructuresshouldberetainedordismantledneedstobeconsideredonacasebycasebasistakingintoaccountboththepersonalandfinancialcircumstancesofthebeneficialownersandthetaximplications.

Forexample,iftheintendedbeneficiaryandoccupantofa£2millionpropertyhasashortlifeexpectancy,itmaybemorecosteffectivetoretainthestructureandpaytheARPTtopreservetheIHTchargeof£800,000(£2mx40%)orcostsofrevisingthestructure.ConverselyifthebeneficiaryhasalongerlifeexpectancyitmightbefinanciallyadvantageoustoappointthepropertyoutofthecompanyandlooktomanagetheIHTliabilityinotherways.However,asmentioned,appointingthepropertyoutofthestructuremaygiverisetoothertaxcharges.

Thoseaffectedbythenewrulesmustseekadvicetounderstandwhatoptionsareavailabletothemandtimeislimited.

IndividualswishingtopurchaseUKresidentialpropertiesvaluedover£2millionwillneedtoconsidertheimplicationsofthenewruleswhendecidinghowthepurchasewillbestructured..


Recent Articles

The taxation of high value UK residential property (continued)


11

Pinsent Masons

Daniel Regan v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 570Residence, for the purpose of capital gains tax main residence relief is not merely a question of duration of occupation, therefore a property can be an individual’s main residence in circumstances where he only spends a limited amount of time there.

In1994,MrReganhadboughtaproperty,95RowanAvenue,atthebackofaclubwhichwasownedbyafamilycompanyandwhichhemanaged.Theentertainmentmanageroftheclubalsolivedattheproperty.AtChristmas1996,MrReganhadtemporarilymovedoutof95RowanAvenuetoenablehisentertainmentmanagertohosthiswife’sfamilythere.Aroundthattime,MrReganhadmethisfuturewifeandspentmostofhistimeatherflat.However,mostofhisbelongingshadremainedat95RowanAvenuewhichheusedashismainpostaladdress.

In1998,hepurchasedahomewithhisgirlfriendandmovedoutof95RowanAvenue.Hisparentstookoverthemortgagepaymentson95RowanAvenueandeventuallypurchasedthepropertyin2000.

HMRCarguedthatmainresidencereliefwasnotavailableasMrReganhadnot

occupiedthepropertywithsufficientpermanence.

TheFTTfoundinfavourofMrRegannotingthathisoccupationofhisgirlfriend’sflatdidnothavetherequired“settledquality”tomovehismainresidencethere.Ashehadmovedoutof95RowanAvenuewithinthe36monthspriortothesaleofthepropertytohisparents,mainresidencereliefwasavailable.

Field Fisher Waterhouse v HMRC (C-392/11)The UK treatment of service charges as part of a single supply of immovable property under a lease is likely to be correct.

FieldFisherWaterhousewerethetenantsofapropertywhichwasnottheobjectofanelectiontotax.TheleasewasthereforeexemptfromVATandnoVATwaspayableontherents.Theleasealsoprovidedforaservicechargewhichthetenantshadtopayforservicessuppliedbythelandlord.Thelandlordwasentitledtoterminatetheleasefornon-paymentoftheservicecharge.

FFWarguedthatthesupplyofservicesbythelandlordwasadistinctsupplyonwhichVATwouldhavebeencharged

andsubmittedaclaimforarefundofinputtaxonthosesupplies.

TheFTTreferredtheissuetotheCJ-EUforapreliminaryruling.Thecourtnotedthat“obtainingtheservicesconcernedcannotberegardedasconstitutinganendinitselfforanaveragetenantofpremises(…)butconstitutesratherameansofbetterenjoyingtheprincipalsupply,namelytheleasingofcommercialpremises”.Thecourtreferredthematterbacktothecourtstodecidewhetherservicechargesandrentweresocloselylinkedtoeachotherthattheymustberegardedasasinglesupply.

Thecourtpointedoutthatthefactthattheservicechargewasmentionedintheleaseandthatitsnon-paymentwasagroundforterminationbythelandlordwasnotdecisive.

ThisleavesthefinaldecisiontotheUKcourts,butitislikelythattheywillconfirmthattheUKtreatmentofservicechargesiscorrect.

Nathaniel David Roden and Rebecca Catherine Roden v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 586The exclusion from the exemption from VAT on supplies of land for

hotel accommodation should not be interpreted strictly and can apply in circumstances where the recipient of the supply is not the end user of the accommodation.

MrandMrsRodenhadtakenalongleaseofaholidayapartmentinahotelownedbySDMLandmanagedbyGVL.GVLthereforeactedasdisclosedagentinrentingtheflattoguests.UnderArticle28ofthePrincipalVATdirective,MrandMrsRodenhadmadeadeemedsupplyoftheflattoGVLfollowedbyadeemedsupplybyGVLtotheguests.

Althoughsuppliesoflandareexempt,Item1(d),Schedule9,VATA1994excludestheprovisionofhotelaccommodationfromtheexemption.MrandMrsRodenthereforearguedthatVAThadbeenchargedonthesupplytoGVLandthatthereforeinputtaxattributabletothatsupplywasrecoverable.

HMRCcontendedthattheexclusionfromtheexemptiondidnotapplyastheexceptionwaslimitedtocircumstanceswheretherecipientusestheaccommodationassleepingaccommodation.AsGVLwasnottheenduseroftheflat,thiswasnotthecase.

Our perspective on recent cases


12

Summaries by Cathya Djanogly

Pinsent Masons

TheFTTrejectedHMRC’scontentionpointingoutthatexclusionsfromexemptionarenotinterpretedstrictly–onlytheexemptionsaretobeinterpretedstrictly.Thetwodeemedsupplieswerethereforetaxable.

HMRC v UK Storage [2012] UKUT 359Storage units which are not fixed to the ground are moveable property so that their supply cannot be a supply of land.

ThiswasanappealbyHMRCagainstadecisionoftheFTT.

UKStorageprovidedself-storageunitswhichwereself-containedandfullyenclosedwithinasecurecompound.Theyresteduponthegroundundertheirownweightinthesurroundingconcretebutwerenotfixedtotheground.

HMRChadtreatedthesupplybythecompanyasastandardratedsupplyandnotanexemptsupplyofland(Group1,schedule9,VATA).

TheUTdisagreedwiththeFTTonmostofitsconclusionsandallowedHMRC’sappeal:

• ThefirsttestinMaierhoferwas

whetherthestorageunitswerefixedtotheground.Theunitsonlyrestedontheirownweight,theythereforefailedthefirsttest.TheFTThadbeenwronginthinkingthattheconceptofmoveabilitywaskey.

• Thesecondtestwaswhethertheunitscouldbeeasilydismantledandremovedoreasilymovedwithoutbeingdismantled.TheFTThadbeenwronginaddingafurtherconditionthattheunitsshouldbecapableofbeingre-erectedsomewhereelse.Theunitscouldbemovedbyatele-handlerandthereforetheanswertothesecondtestwasyesandsothetestwasfailed.

• TheUThoweveragreedwiththeFTT’sfindingthattheagreementwithcustomersdidcreatearighttooccupyunits(despitethecompany’srightofre-entry)andthatthereforealicencecouldhaveexisted(iftheunitshadbeenimmoveableproperty).

• Finally,theUTfound(disagreeingagainwiththeFTT)thatthecompanywassupplyingabundleofservices,themaincomponentofwhichwasthesupplyofstoragefacilities.Theevidencewasthatcustomerswouldspecifythesizeoftheunitrequiredbutnotits

location.Themainsupplywasthereforenotasupplyoflandandthesupplywasasinglecompositesupplyofstorageservices.

HMRC v DV3 RS Limited Partnership [2012] UKUT 399 (TCC)An SDLT scheme involving a combination of sub-sale relief and transfer to a partnership “worked”, the loophole was closed (by Section 75A FA 2003).

Undersub-salerelief(Section45FinanceAct2003),ifAentersintoacontracttoselltoBandBentersintoacontracttoselltoC,andcompletionofbothcontractstakesplaceatthesametime,SDLTisonlychargedonthetransferfromAtoC.

Underthepartnershiprules(Schedule15,FinanceAct2003),atransferbyapartnertopartnershipisonlychargeabletoSDLTbyreferencetotheproportionofthemarketvalueoftheassetwhichwillnolongerbeheldbythepartner.

TheschemeatissueinvolvedacontractforsalebyAtoBwhowasapartnerinapartnership(C)withotherpartnersconnectedtoB.Anothercontractforsale(thesecondarycontract)was

enteredintobetweenBandC.Underthepartnershipprovisions,thetransferbyBtoCshouldnottriggeranySDLTasBwaseffectivelytransferringanassettohimselfandpersonsconnectedtohim.

TheFTThadfoundinfavourofthetaxpayer(seeM-Tax11),HMRCappealed.

HMRC’smainargumentwasthat,underthesub-saleprovisions,nochargeabletransactionhadtakenplacebetweenAandBandthattherefore,Bhadnotacquiredthe“chargeableinterest”inthepropertyforSDLTpurposes.Consequently,Bcouldnotbethevendorunderthe“secondarycontract”andsothepartnershipprovisions(whichwouldreducethechargeableSDLTtonil)couldnotapply.

TheUTdismissedHMRC’sappeal,findingthatthepurposeofthesub-saleprovisionswasonlytonegatethe“doublechargetotaxthatwouldotherwiseariseoncompletion”ofasub-saletransaction.“Thedisregarddoesnotpurporttochangeanythingthathashappenedintherealworld”.

TheUTconcluded:“ThisresultisnodoubtonethatParliamentwouldnotconsciouslyhaveintendedhadthefacts



13


Pinsent Masons

ofthepresentcasebeendrawntoitsattention”.Finally,thetribunalnotedthattheloopholeinthelegislationhadeffectivelybeenclosedbySection75AFA2003.

Mark Young T/A The St Helens v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 702 (TC) The grant of a lease over the premises of a restaurant, following their repossession by the Landlord can constitute a transfer as a going concern for VAT purposes.

MrYounghadoperatedarestaurantthroughacompanycalledBonneBoucheeCaterersLimited(“BonneBouchee”).Whenthecompanybecameinsolvent,thelandlordrepossessedthepremises.MrYoungreopenedtherestaurantasasoletradertwoweekslater,followingnegotiationsforanewleaseofBonneBouchee’spremises.

HMRC’sarguedthatMrYoungwasliabletoberegisteredforVATashisbusiness’srevenuehadreachedtherelevantthreshold.ThiswasonthebasisthatsuppliesmadebyBonneBoucheeshouldbetreatedassuppliesmadebyMr.Youngunders.49VATA.

MrYoungacceptedthatiftherehadbeenatransferofthebusinessasa

goingconcernfromBonneBouchee,hewouldbeliable,butarguedthatnosuchtransferhadtakenplace.

TheTribunalfoundthatatransferasagoingconcernhadtakenplace,relyingonthefollowingpoints:

• Thetransferofpossessionofthepremises,fixturesandfittingstoanintermediateperson(thelandlord)didnotprecludethetransferofthebusinessasagoingconcern.TheTribunalnotedthats.49VATAwasintendedtopreventbusinessesfromavoidingtheregistrationthresholdbytransferringtoanewlegalentity.

• Thetimelapseinownershipoftwotothreeweeksdidnotpreventthetransferfrombeingatransferasagoingconcern.

• AlthoughMrYoungdidnotreceiveanystockorgoodwillfromthelandlord,thepremises,fixturesandfittingsweresufficienttoconcludethatsubstantiallythesamebusinessasbeforewasbeingcarriedout.

Thetribunalalsoconsideredasecondaryissue;whetherMrYounghadalegitimateexpectationtorelyon

advicehehadreceivedthroughHMRC’sVAThelpline.OnthisandonwhetherasamatteroflawtheTribunalhasanyjurisdiction,theappealwasstayedpendingtheoutcomeofNoorandTrade Sales Ltd.

Sere Properties Limited v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 778 Arrears of rent between associated companies are not deductible where rent fallen due has not been claimed in order to assist the tenant company.

MrandMrsEdgarranapropertymanagementbusinessviatheircompanySerePropertyLimitedaswellasasecond-handcarbusinessviaanothercompanycalledSereMotorsLimited.

SerePropertiesleasedvariouspremisestoSereMotorssothatforthetaxyearinissue,rentfromSereMotorswastheonlyincomeofSereProperties.

WhenSereMotorsranintoseverefinancialdifficulties,MrandMrsEdgarwereadvisedthattocontinuepayingrentcouldbeseenasapreferenceleadingtodisqualificationfromholdingfurtherdirectorships.TheFTTalsoheardevidencethatSerePropertiesstoppeddemandingrentinthehope

thatthis“breathingspace”wouldenableSereMotorstoputisaffairsinorderandeventuallypaytherentarrears.

TheFTThadtodecidewhethertherentarrearsweredeductibleexpensesforSerePropertiesas“incurredwhollyandexclusivelyforthepurposeofitstrade.”

TheFTTfoundinfavourofHMRCholdingthatthedecisiontoforegorenthadbeendrivenmainlybythedesiretobenefitSereMotors..



14


Budget 2013 Digested

FollowingourhugelysuccessfulAutumnStatementBreakfastSeminarPinsentMasonsisdelightedtoinviteyoutoabreakfastseminarwiththeFinancialTimesseniorcorrespondantVanessaHouldertodigestthebudgetstatementonthemorningofMarch21st2013.

Wewillconfirmdetailsofourpanelofexpertsnearerthedate.

WedohopeyouwilljoinusforexpertanalysisofallannouncementsmadebytheChancellor.

Date:Thursday21March2013

Time:Breakfastservedfrom8am;Seminarcommencesat8.30;Seminarends10am

Venue: PinsentMasonsLLP,30CrownPlace,London,EC2A4ES

Forthcoming Seminar

Pinsent MasonsEvents

ThePinsentMasonsTaxteamwillbehostingtheseminardetailedbelow.

Tofindoutmoreorbookaplace,pleasecontactAlistairMcVanon02070542735oralistair.mcvan@pinsentmasons.com


15

mailto:alistair.mcvan%40mcgrigors.com?subject=

Pinsent Masons

Tell us what you think Wewelcomecommentsonthenewsletter,andsuggestionsforfuturecontent.

Pleasesendanycommentsorsuggestionstocathya.djanogly@pinsentmasons.com

Youcanalsousethisemailaddressifyouhaveanyqueries.

Pinsent Masons People

Combining the experience, resources and international reachof McGrigors and Pinsent Masons

Pinsent Masons LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the appropriate regulatory body in the other jurisdictions in which it operates. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to the LLP, refers to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant of the LLP or any affiliated firm of equivalent standing. A list of the members of the LLP, and of those non-members who are designated as partners, is displayed at the LLP’s registered office: 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES, United Kingdom. We use ‘Pinsent Masons’ to refer to Pinsent Masons

LLP and affiliated entities that practise under the name ‘Pinsent Masons’ or a name that incorporates those words. Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of those affiliated entities as the context requires. © Pinsent Masons LLP 2013.

For a full list of our locations around the globe please visit our websites

www.pinsentmasons.com | www.Out-Law.com

1. What do you think are the major developments which will affect the property market in the coming year?

I’mnotanticipatingmuchchangeonthetaxside–thechangesinthepipelineonhighvalueresidential,REITsandsub-salesaredealingwiththetaxpolicyissueswewereawareof.InfrastructureallowanceshavebeenmuchdiscussedandtherecouldclearlybeaboosttorealestateactivityiftheGovernmentmovesontheseintheBudget.Inthepropertymarketgenerally,therewillcontinuetobeaslowreturntoactivitywiththefocusstillbeingonprimeassets,Londonresidentialandsomeofthe“alternative”classessuchashealthcareandstudentaccommodation.

2. The merger of Pinsent Masons is almost a year old. How has it affected the property tax practice of the two merged firms?

ThemergerhasresultedinthebiggestrealestatelawfirmteamintheUKsothathasobviouslygivenaccesstoagreatclientbaseofinvestors,developersandfunders.We’realsoseeingalotmoreactivitylinked

toourPrivateWealthbusinessandtheUKremainsanattractiveandsafebaseforinvestors.Themergerofthetaxpracticehasbroughttogetheragreatrangeofskillsandexperienceincludingex-Big4accountantsandHMRCprofessionalsand,ayearon,we’reseeingthebenefitsofthis.Overthenextyear,Iseemorecross-borderprojectsworkingwithourShanghai,MunichandParisoffices.

3. What do you enjoy most about your role?

ThereallysatisfyingpartofmyroleisworkingwiththepeopleintheteamatPinsentMasons,bothtaxandthewiderrealestatepractice,todeliveragreatservicetoourclients.Ialsofinditreallyrewardingtospotanopportunityortrendinthemarketandthentakeitouttoclients–it’sgreatwhenaclientsaysyou’rethefirsttoraiseit.

4. Do you have any advice for young lawyers?

Neverbeafraidofaskingaquestion,howeverbasicinmayseem.Istillbenefitenormouslyfrombouncingthoughtsoffcolleagues–hopefully,theydon’tthinkthey’retoobasic!.

Cathya Djanogly interviews John Christian, partner in the Pinsent Masons Tax team


16

People

John Christian isapartnerandheadofourCorporateTaxTeam.Hespecialisesincorporateandbusinesstax,andadvisesonthetaxaspectsofUKandinternationalmergersandacquisitions,jointventuresandpartneringarrangements,privateequitytransactions,treasuryandfundingissues,propertytaxation,transactionsunderthePrivateFinanceInitiativeandVAT.


mailto:cathya.djanogly%40pinsentmasons.com?subject=

mailto:cathya.djanogly%40pinsentmasons.com?subject=



property special edition in this issue - pinsent masons · pdf fileproperty special edition 16...

Documents