Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in an appeal by way of case stated from a determination of a Tax Appeal Commissioner, finds that the Commissioner was not correct in determining that investors had not validly exercised a put option, and consequently, the notice served by the investors was an enforceable contract capable of giving rise to a charge to stamp duty.
Tax – Revenue – appeal by way of case stated from a determination of the Tax Appeal Commissioner - exercise of a put option by a group of investors by way of notice dated 24 January 2014 was chargeable to tax stamp duty - whether the option itself had been absolutely assigned by the investors to Barclays Bank (“the bank”) under a Deed of Mortgage, Charge and Assignment dated 28 February 2013 (“the deed”) such that the purported exercise of the option by the investors nearly a year later was invalid – background facts - third put and call option agreement - facility agreement (February 2013) - Deed of mortgage, charge and assignment - notice of assignment of material contracts – subsequent events - stamp duty implications - Tax Appeal Commissioner’s determination - relevant statutory provisions - interpretation of contractual provisions - absolute assignment – analysis of transaction documents - Appeal Commissioner was not correct in determining that the investors had not validly exercised the put option - notice served by the investors was an enforceable contract capable of giving rise to a charge to stamp duty - interest held by the investors in the property was an equitable one arising under the contract for sale which contract had not been completed - therefore, the put option notice comprised a contract or agreement for the sale of the investors’ equitable estate or interest in the 999- year lease in the hotel property under the contract for sale - no basis for also considering the agreement to have rested in contract under s.31A(1) and consequently for addressing the requirements of s.31A(1)(b).
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.