Public takeovers

When a company wishes to acquire another company (‘target’) whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market or multilateral trading facility in the UK (eg the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange or AIM, respectively), the acquisition is typically described as a public takeover.

Typical takeover structures

The tax consequences of a public takeover will depend on how the takeover is structured, and in particular whether:

  1. the consideration offered to target shareholders for their shares is:

    1. cash

    2. shares

    3. loan notes, or

    4. a combination of the above

  2. the offer is structured as:

    1. a contractual takeover offer—this is where the offeror company (‘bidder’) makes an offer to the target shareholders to acquire their shares in target in return for consideration (ie cash, shares and/or loan notes), or

    2. a transfer scheme of arrangement—this is where target enters into a court scheme to sanction:

      1. the target shareholders transferring their shares to the bidder, and

      2. the bidder paying the target shareholders the consideration that has been offered in exchange (ie cash, shares and/or

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