If a fee is paid for a separate matter and does not have to be paid to secure the property, this does not constitute a paid consideration for SDLT purposes. For example, a buyer`s own legal fees would not be part of the taxable consideration, since the fees are paid to the buyer in return for legal services. Fees should not be paid to guarantee the seller`s consent to the transfer and fees should be paid even if the real estate transaction fails. In addition to full ownership, it is possible to own property jointly with other parties, even if this is not the case when the parties are not related to each other. In addition, subject to any restrictions imposed in the lease agreement, shares in leases may be acquired and disposed of in the same way as ownership shares. For the purposes of the SDLT, the amounts paid for the booking contract and for the property should be fairly and appropriately compensated. It seems reasonable to despise them in the way the parties have documented it, especially since the figures are set at an open auction. This would mean that SDLT is only due on the price set out in the contract and the transfer, and not on the booking fee. I met twice last week with the use of this method of sale for residential property. A tax (usually 3.5% of the prize or at least £6,000 VAT included) is paid by the „winner“ of the auction, who receives a „booking agreement“ and 56 days during which a sales contract can be negotiated and the transaction can be concluded. It is an offence for a person to purchase property in a regulated sales and rental agreement, unless the person is an authorized person or a person released under financial services laws or an exclusion: there is exclusion if the buyer and seller/tenant are closely related. Local authorities and registered social landlords are released.
But in the normal case of a buyer who offers to allow the seller to remain in employment, there is no exemption and the buyer, if an individual, will not have the authorization or exemption under financial services legislation. At the conference, we discussed the limitations of the case. There is no objection to the sale of land and the construction contract being essentially a transaction or that the parties would not have entered into a contract without the other. However, the prerequisite is that the sale of land is concluded „independently“ of the construction contract. . . .