Avoid paying stamp duty [Easy steps inside]

[diseasex]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/...dance-offshore

The mechanism by which houses are exchanged using SPVs is somewhat complex, but essentially works like this: rather than buying the house and changing the registered owner, a purchaser instead buys the company. As the company is held offshore, there is no indication to UK authorities that it has changed hands, and records at the Land Registry – which holds details of the ownership of all UK properties – do not need to be updated.

Buying in this way, which is entirely legal, grants the purchaser total anonymity and confidentiality in UK records, but – as the registered owner of the house does not change – also allows the buyer to avoid paying stamp duty. In the case of ultra-luxury developments like Cornwall Terrace, this can deprive the exchequer of millions of pounds.

[DimPrawn]

HMR&C don't give a tulip.

You think the billionaire's buying up all of London pay any stamp duty?

[blackeye]

Essentially these billionaires are just like us contractors, except they are wealthy.

Nobody likes their money being taken away from them.

[Martin@AS Financial]

The article is from a few years ago and HMRC have been on on the war path since.

From the gov.uk website:


Following the growing use of schemes to avoid Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) the Chancellor made clear in his 2012 Budget that he would not hesitate to use retrospective legislation to close down SDLT avoidance schemes. Despite this warning, some avoidance scheme users continued to abuse the transfer of rights (or subsale) rules. As a result, the Chancellor introduced legislation to close down those schemes.

The Blackfriars scheme was one such SDLT avoidance scheme. When the government closed down the scheme, a number of its users claimed the European Convention on Human Rights was invoked and that the government’s actions represented an abuse of their property rights and right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal unanimously refused an application for a judicial review against SDLT retrospective legislation, introduced in 2013 and applied retrospectively to 21 March 2012 APVCO 19 Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 648 (30 June 2015) .

Lord Justice Vos said

"The government had made it perfectly clear that SDLT avoidance schemes…..would not be tolerated, and that retrospective legislation would be used to achieve that objective. The appellants can have been in no doubt about any of that, before they decided to take advantage of a scheme devised purely to circumvent the precise wording of section 45(1A) as it was before the legislative changes.”

The consequences of the legislative changes were summarised by Lord Justice Vos as:

i. The appellants’ schemes do not work, so that their argument that the original sale transactions were not subject to SDLT is rendered unsustainable.
“
ii. In consequence, the appellants will have to pay the SDLT due on their original sale transactions.”

This is further success for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) who have a 100% record in defeating SDLT avoidance schemes. HMRC strongly advises anyone who has used an SDLT avoidance scheme to contact us at [email protected] to discuss how they can withdraw from their scheme and settle their liability. A number of users of SDLT avoidance schemes have already chosen to put this issue behind them and have settled with HMRC.