Demergers

A demerger means the separation of a company’s business into two or more parts, typically carried on by successor companies under the same ownership as the original company.

A business undergoing a demerger will want to minimise any tax charges triggered by the demerger itself. The main concerns are likely to be:

  1. that the receipt of shares in the successor company by the shareholders of the target company is not charged to:

    1. income tax (or corporation tax on income) as a distribution, or

    2. capital gains tax (or corporation tax on chargeable gains) as a disposal or part disposal of their shares in the target company

  2. that the disposal of the demerged business by the target company is not taxed as a chargeable gain, and that the demerger does not trigger degrouping charges (including degrouping charges under the intangible asset, loan relationships or derivative contracts rules), and

  3. that the demerger does not trigger any charges to stamp taxes on shares or land

The need to obtain tax clearances must be factored into the transaction timetable.

For an introduction to the different

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents