Author
Stephen Burke

Stephen Burke

Senior Associate

Read More
Author
Stephen Burke

Stephen Burke

Senior Associate

Read More

13 July 2021

RED alert - Summer 2021 – 5 of 6 Insights

Council Clawback – Supreme Court shuts down another rates avoidance scheme

Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd v Rossendale BC [2021] UKSC 16

 

By unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that companies behind special purpose vehicle companies (SPVs) are liable to pay non-domestic rates for periods when unoccupied properties have been leased to SPVs.

Who is liable to pay business rates?

Liability to pay business rates falls on the occupier of a property.  Where a property is unoccupied, the liability will fall on the owner of a property, who is defined as the person entitled to possession (subject to certain exceptions).

What was the scheme?

To circumvent paying business rates, an avoidance scheme involved granting a short lease of an unoccupied property to a SPV.  The SPV became the owner of that property for the purpose of rates liability instead of the company behind the SPV.  No rent was paid by the SPV to the company behind it for the period of its occupation.  The SPV would then be dissolved or put into liquidation to escape rates liability and the local authority would be unable to recover the outstanding arrears.

Supreme Court's decision

The Supreme Court took the view that Parliament could not have intended that the person entitled to possession of an unoccupied property on whom the liability for business rates is imposed should encompass a company which has no real or practical ability to exercise its legal right to possession and on which that legal right has been conferred for no purpose other than the avoidance of liability for rates.

The outcome of this decision is that the company behind the SPV remained liable for business rates and could be pursued by the local authority.

Our comment

The net continues to close around schemes designed to mitigate business rates liability. We previously reported on the decision that a property owner remains in rateable occupation of premises that were occupied by property guardians.

It is now clear that leasing a property to a SPV, followed by its dissolution or liquidation, will not avoid business rates liability.

Given the complexities surrounding this issue, we recommend that legal advice is sought if you are considering implementing any schemes designed to mitigate liability to pay business rates.

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

Construction site at night with workers welding
Real estate & construction

Neighbourly conduct: love thy neighbour (and grant them access)

8 April 2022
Briefing

by Stephen Burke

Click here to find out more
Modern glass skyscraper
Real estate & construction

Commercial rent arrears: options to landlords following lifting of moratorium

30 March 2022

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more
Suspension bridge vanishing point
Real estate & construction

Time to pay up? Moratorium ends on commercial rent arrears

25 March 2022
In-depth analysis

by multiple authors

Click here to find out more