Q&A: Mitigating empty rates
Timothy Morshead QC and James Souter answer queries on schemes to reduce empty rates liability.
Question
My client is paying empty rates for its commercial property while it tries to find a tenant. Can it mitigate its rates liability?
Answer
Perhaps.
Explanation
In origin, rates are a tax on occupation of land, not on its ownership. This changed with the introduction of empty rates.
Bolting on a tax on empty property to a tax on occupation has created several anomalies. One of these anomalies might work in favour of ratepayers, like this: empty rates start after three months, but they cease if an occupier can be found who occupies for as little as six weeks. Thus, short-term occupation can “reset” the three-month exemption from empty rates.
Billing authorities are therefore motivated to show that the short-term occupation does not “count” for one reason or another, so that they can collect empty rates on a continuous basis, without any “reset”. For this, in turn, they are motivated to argue that “occupation” has a narrow meaning. But because rating developed as a tax on the occupation of land, rather than ownership of it, the law has developed a broad concept of “occupation” (to capture more tax), not a narrow one. So there is a tension between the general law of rating, and the law of empty rates.
The High Court had to consider this in R (on the application of Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd) v Trafford Council [2018] EWHC 1687 (Admin); [2018] PLSCS 125. Principled were “professional occupiers” occupying otherwise empty property for periods of six weeks by storing boxes (filled with low-value items for eventual resale, but assumed to be worthless for the sake of argument), in return for a share of the rates saved by the owner of the property.
The billing authority argued that “occupation” would only count if it achieved some purpose over and beyond the fact of occupation. Principled argued that “occupation” was present wherever there was an outward presence on land coupled with a volition to occupy.
The court agreed with Principled, largely because otherwise it would have had to make a value judgment to distinguish between different activities, each involving similar outward use of land, but producing different legal consequences. There was no appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Thus, on the basis of the law as presently stated, it is relatively straightforward to achieve a significant mitigation of empty rates. Other rates mitigation schemes have also been considered by the courts.
To some, it seems surprising that empty rates can be so readily mitigated (or, under some schemes, avoided). But (a) empty rates are conceptually unlike conventional rates, so bolting them onto conventional rates is like forcing a square peg into a round hole; and (b) parliament, presumably on purpose, chose not to list rates among the various taxes subject to the general anti-abuse rule introduced in the Finance Act 2013. So perhaps it should not seem so surprising.
Question
My client has been advised about a scheme to mitigate their liability for empty rates which involves granting a series of short-term lettings. They are concerned this will require active management over a period of time and have asked if there are any other mitigation schemes?
Answer
There are other mitigation schemes which might be seen as more risky. The Court of Appeal recently approved one in what some consider a surprising decision.
Explanation
As we know, rates are a tax on the occupation of land. In cases where there are both freehold and leasehold interests, the liability will fall on the tenant.
But what if the freeholder of empty premises grants a lease in favour of a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) and then puts the SPV into liquidation to avoid payment of rates? This is what happened in Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd and others [2019] EWCA Civ 364; [2019] EGLR 20, which involved two test cases from a group of around 55 cases involving similar mitigation schemes.
It will come as a surprise to many to hear that the Court of Appeal approved this and other similar schemes, finding that the SPVs shielded the freehold owner from any liability to rates.
The court considered two lines of attack by the local authority. The first was that the corporate veil of the SPV should be pierced. The lease was found to be genuine and not a sham and therefore, as a matter of law, from the date of its execution passed the liability for rates to the SPV. The fact that the sole purpose of the lease was to avoid rates was considered to be irrelevant, as were any concerns around the morality of the freeholder’s motivation.
The second line of attack was what is known as the Ramsay principle (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1981] UKHL 1), which involves a purposive approach to the construction of statutes. Having carefully reviewed section 45(1) of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988, the Court of Appeal in Rossendale found that the ownership condition which triggers a liability to business rates was concerned with the immediate entitlement to legal possession. As a matter of law, it was satisfied the moment that a valid lease was granted.
While this decision might come as a surprise, it is probably best summed up by an extract from the judgment of David Richards LJ: “The use of companies to avoid the incidence of tax or [non-domestic rates] can hardly be described as rare or novel. They are frequently inserted in tax avoidance schemes for no reason other than to mitigate or avoid the incidence of one form or another of taxation.”
Timothy Morshead QC is a barrister at Landmark Chambers and James Souter is a partner in the property litigation group at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Our thinking
Charity Training: Digital Transformation in the Charity Sector (Session 2)
We would be delighted if you could join us for the second session in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
Charity Training Webinar Series: Brand Protection (Session 1)
We would be delighted if you could join us for the first in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
Rose Carey
The UK’s New Skilled Worker & Intra-Company Visa Routes: a closer look
Taking a closer look at the UK’s new visas to assist UK businesses.
Daniel Sullivan
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Duke Royalty on increasing and extending its revolving credit facility agreement
London listed Duke Royalty was founded in 2015 and is the leading provider of royalty finance to companies in the UK and Europe.
Julie Sharpe
Explore your Options: Top 10 Tips with Option Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips with option agreements - what should you know?
Jemimah Fleet
Co-parenting arrangements - what are they and what are some of the key considerations?
Ingrid Saffin
The Future of the High Street Starts Here
Sarah Morley
Office Occupiers: What to do if you’ve got excess space
What should you do if you have excess space or the wrong space for your business?
Caroline Swain
THE. PUB. IS. OPEN. but for how long?
Emma Humphreys
How will the commercial property market exit COVID-19 restrictions?
Mark Rowden
EWS1 Forms - the latest episode
RICS have now published their highly anticipated guidance on when EWS1 forms will be required.
Laura Bushaway
Q&A: Am I insured for COVID-19?
Laura Bushaway writes for Estates Gazette on a recent claim under the “disease clause” of business interruption policy.
Simon Ridpath
The Purpose Podcast: Corporate purpose
Simon Ridpath discusses corporate purpose and the rise of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in “The Purpose Podcast”
Joseph Green
Snail farms and other slow moving business (rates mitigation schemes)
Paul Henty
Client alert: Construction under competition law spotlight
We outline the three investigations which have either recently concluded or are ongoing together with what this means for businesses.
Lydia O'Hagan
New permitted development right to convert unused commercial premises into homes to come into force
Emma Humphreys
Looking beyond the benefitted land: confirmation that an objector’s wider property may be considered in applications to discharge/modify restrictive covenants
Read our recent case study on applicants who were prevented from developing a new house due to a restrictive covenant covering their land.
Lauren Fraser
Further extension of coronavirus restrictions affecting residential properties: Where are we now?
The extension will be implemented from and including 31 March 2021 by the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Thomas Moran
Knight Frank Wealth Report: The Global Perspective on Prime Property & Investment
Knight Frank partners joined Charles Russell Speechlys for a virtual panel-led discussion on the Knight Frank Wealth Report
Daniel Moore
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.