Charities can claim refunds for overpaid SDLT on joint purchases
HMRC has published its view of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the joint cases of The Pollen Estate Trustee Company Limited and Kings College London v HMRC.
Charities can claim refunds for any overpaid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) on purchases of properties jointly with non-charity purchasers.
The key points about the ability to claim are:the relief is limited to circumstances where the charity has used the greater part of its share of the property for charitable purposes: the relief is limited to circumstances where the charity has used the greater part of its share of the property for charitable purposes; the normal time period of 12 months applies; and charities will have to demonstrate the size of their shares in the properties and the charitable purposes.
Earlier this year the Court of Appeal held that when a charity purchases property jointly with a non-charity, the charity can claim relief from SDLT on its share of the property. The relief is available if the charity intends to hold the land for qualifying charitable purposes and the transaction has not been entered into for the purpose of avoiding tax, whether by the buyer or any other person…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Nabarro briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Nabarro
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Nabarro
This case has highlighted the question of whether there is a ‘gap’ in clause 20 of the FIDIC conditions where arbitration is chosen as the final method of dispute resolution.
Lord Justice Jackson gave a keynote speech at the Costs Law and Practice Conference on 30 September, making a number of comments on the progress of his reforms.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Nabarro senior partner and self-confessed “IT geek” Graham Stedman is heralding a major set of investments in technology ahead of the firm’s move to 125 London Wall this year.
Clients are more willing to bring claims against professional service providers but the risk to defendants is not as dramatic as it might seem