Summary
Where land is acquired by a bare trustee for several beneficial owners, stamp duty land tax is charged on the single equitable estate collectively acquired, not on each beneficiary’s undivided share separately.
However, Finance Act 2003, Schedule 8 paragraph 1 must be construed purposively. A joint land transaction is exempt from charge to the extent of a charity’s beneficial interest, where that interest is held for qualifying charitable purposes. The court may adopt that reading where it corrects an evident drafting omission, gives effect to the statutory purpose and identifies the substance of the correction without engaging in legislation.
Factual background
The first appellant, trustee of the Pollen Estate, acquired commercial property for a bare trust whose beneficiaries included charities and non-charities. The second appellant, King’s College London, was a charity which acquired a 46.3 per cent beneficial interest in a flat under its employee shared-equity scheme; the employee held the remaining interest.
The Upper Tribunal held that SDLT was charged on the entire interest acquired jointly and that charities relief was unavailable because the purchasers were not all charities. The appellants challenged both conclusions. The central issue was whether the charitable beneficiaries could obtain SDLT relief for their proportionate beneficial interests in jointly acquired land.
Held
Appeals allowed on the charities-relief issue. The court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s identification of the chargeable interest, but held that it had construed the relieving provision too literally.
Under Finance Act 2003, a land transaction is the acquisition of a chargeable interest. Where a trustee acquires land as bare trustee, Schedule 16 paragraph 3 deems the interest acquired by the trustee to be vested in the beneficiaries. The relevant interest is therefore the equitable fee simple or term of years acquired collectively by the trustee, not each beneficiary’s undivided share. The beneficiaries are jointly entitled to that single equitable estate. There is one land transaction and SDLT is calculated by reference to the aggregate consideration.
The court nevertheless gave Schedule 8 paragraph 1 a purposive construction. It should be read as providing that a land transaction is exempt from charge to the extent that the purchaser is a charity and the statutory conditions are met. Relief is therefore available for the proportion of the beneficial interest attributable to a charity which holds that interest for qualifying charitable purposes.
That construction corrected an evident drafting omission without impermissible judicial legislation. The statutory scheme afforded relief where a charity acquired property alone, through a bare trustee, with other charities, or by a separate purchase of an existing beneficial share. No policy justified denying relief solely because the charity participated in a joint acquisition with non-charities. The anti-avoidance condition in Schedule 8 paragraph 1(3) also addressed the suggested avoidance concern.
The court applied the statutory-correction approach in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586. It was clear that Parliament intended relief for qualifying charitable interests, had inadvertently failed to provide for this joint-purchase situation, and would have enacted relief proportionate to the charity’s undivided beneficial share. The fact that the precise legislative wording was not available did not prevent that construction.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed both appeals on the construction of charities relief, while affirming the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion that SDLT was charged on the equitable estate collectively acquired: [2013] EWCA Civ 753 .
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): Held that the relevant chargeable interest was the entire interest acquired jointly and that no charities relief was available where a non-charity also held a beneficial interest: [2012] UKUT 277 (TCC); [2010] STC 2443.
Appeal route
- Appealed from[2012] UKUT 277 (TCC)This appealappeals allowed (on the charities-relief issue only)
- This judgment [2013] EWCA Civ 753 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Key cases cited
8 authorities cited.
- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin [2012] UKSC 39
- Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Limited (Respondents) v. Mawson (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes (Appellant) [2004] UKHL 51
- Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
- McGuckian v Inland Revenue Comrs [1997] 1 WLR 991
- WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Comrs [1982] AC 300
- Luke v Inland Revenue Comrs [1963] AC 557
- Potsos v Theodotou (1991) 23 HLR 356
- Lloyd v Sadler [1978] QB 774
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
29 later cases · 24 positive · 2 neutral · 3 caution
Most senior citing decisions:
- Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 248 applied
- Oisin Fanning v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 263 applied
- Ken Power & Anor. v Raheel Shah [2023] EWCA Civ 239 applied
- The Commissioners for HMRC v Jason Wilkes [2022] EWCA Civ 1612
- Urenco Chemplants Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] EWCA Civ 1587
- Northern Gas Networks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 910
- David Hyman & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 185
- TFS Stores Ltd v The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 688
- Paccar Inc & Ors v Road Haulage Association Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 299
- Eynsham Cricket Club v Revenue & Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 225
Sign in for the full treatment table, including the other 19 cases. A free account is enough.