|||||F-8|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**United**<br>**Kingdom**|**Stamp Duty on Shareholders:**<br>UK stamp duty or, as the case may be, stamp duty<br>reserve tax(SDRT) will, subject to certain<br>exemptions, be payable on the purchase of Ordinary<br>Shares at a rate of 0.5 per cent of the purchase<br>price. There is a minimum charge of £5 where a<br>stamp duty liability arises.|**5 November 2003**<br>Budget and the Finance Bill<br>2003 contain provisions for a<br>new stamp tax to be called<br>Stamp Duty Land Tax ("SDLT").<br>This will take effect on 1<br>December 2003, but there will<br>be important transitional. The<br>proposal for SDLT is a complete<br>rewriting of stamp duty law and<br>procedure in relation to UK land<br>and interests in UK land, but<br>this bulletin will focus on:<br>mainstream transactions on<br>which SDLT will fall more<br>heavily than stamp duty did;<br>and the transitional provisions<br>e.g. for agreements before 1<br>December 2003. Stamp duty is<br>a tax on documents. SDLT is to<br>be a tax on "transactions" and<br>so liability may arise whether or<br>not there is a document and<br>whether any document is held<br>in the UK or elsewhere. Subject<br>to limited exemptions, SDLT will<br>apply to the acquisition by<br>transfer or creation of the<br>following chargeable interests:<br>an estate, interest (legal or<br>equitable), right or power in or<br>over land in the UK; and the<br>benefit of an obligation,<br>restriction or condition affecting<br>the value of any such estate,<br>interest, right or power. So<br>SDLT will apply to more than<br>just freehold and leasehold<br>transfers and the creation and<br>surrender of leases. The timing<br>of SDLT’s commencement is of<br>particular importance for<br>transactions which may be<br>subject to SDLT but were not<br>subject to stamp duty, or where<br>the SDLT payable may be more|**12 November 2003**<br>Joe Churcher and Lesley<br>Richardson, Political Staff, PA<br>News:<br>Changes to stamp duty which will<br>see some retail firms’ bills rise by<br>up to eight times should be<br>scrapped, the Government was<br>told today. Opposition<br>spokesman Mark Prisk said<br>business had united against the<br>proposals, which would hit the<br>pub and leisure industry<br>particularly hard. Mr Prisk said<br>the supposed aim of making<br>stamp duty on leases fairer had<br>been abandoned in favor of “the<br>one overwhelming and desperate<br>need of this Government to<br>collect the maximum tax revenue<br>to fill the black hole in its<br>finances”. “The regulations<br>before us represent not as the<br>Government said ‘another step<br>forward in modernizing stamp<br>duty’. It represents instead two<br>steps back for business. “First, it<br>is a fourfold tax hike unfair for<br>businesses and sectors alike.<br>Second, it is a bad tax.<br>The Government’s consultation<br>had been a “shambles” because<br>everyone consulted was against<br>what was now proposed. Liberal<br>Democrat spokesman David<br>Laws said that because the<br>measures, first unveiled in April’s<br>Budget, would increase duty<br>most on longer leases it would<br>unfairly hit certain sectors such<br>as shops, pubs and restaurants.<br>“There must be a concern about<br>the unfairness.” Introducing the<br>changes, Treasury Financial<br>Secretary Ruth Kelly said<br>ministers had listened to|1)http://www.news.scotsman.com/lat<br>est.cfm?id=2169829<br>2)http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-<br>bin/item.cgi?id=10259&d=32&h=42&<br>f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%<br>20%25Y<br>3)http://www.mondaq.com/i_article.a<br>sp_Q_articleid_E_23211<br>4)http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-<br>bin/item.cgi?id=9054&d=<br>32&h=42&f=23&dateformat=%25o%<br>20%25B%20%25Y<br>_5)http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/_<br>_money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003_<br>_/10/20/cnruth20.xml&menuId=242&s_<br>_Sheet=/money/2003/10/20/ixfrontcity_<br>_.html_<br>_6)http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.u_<br>_k/0150business/0200news/content_o_<br>_bjectid=13617181_method=full_sitei_<br>_d=50002_headline=-Expand-your-_<br>_home-as-market-contracts-_<br>_name_page.html_<br>7) Horsman, E. G., The Avoidance of<br>Estate Duty by Gifts Inter Vivos:<br>Some Quantitative Evidence”, The<br>Economic Journal, September 1975)|

57