|
Division
No.
10] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendments
made: No. 155, in clause 93, page 56,
line 7, leave out ‘4A(1)’ and insert
‘4A’. No.
156, in
clause 93, page 56, line 8, after
‘transactions),’, insert
‘— (a) in sub-paragraph
(1),’. No.
157, in
clause 93, page 56, line 9, at
end insert— ‘(b) after that
sub-paragraph
insert— “(1A)
Sub-paragraph (1) has effect subject to sub-paragraph
(3A).”, (c) in
sub-paragraph (3)— (i)
for “sub-paragraph (1)(a)” substitute “this
paragraph”, and (ii) for
“this sub-paragraph” substitute “this
paragraph”, and (d)
after sub-paragraph (3)
insert— “(3A)
Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply
where— (a) there is a
change in the control of the purchaser because a loan creditor (within
the meaning of section 417(7) to (9) of the Taxes Act 1988) obtains
control of, or ceases to control, the purchaser,
and (b) the other persons who
controlled the purchaser before that change continue to do
so.”’. No.
158, in
clause 93, page 56, line 12, leave
out from ‘2008’ to end of line 19.—[Kitty
Ussher.] Clause
93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
94
Transfers of
interests in property-investment
partnerships Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gauke: I have only one brief point to make about the
clause, which aims to restrict the scope of the anti-avoidance measures
introduced in the Finance Act 2007 by ensuring that when there is a
transfer of an
interest in a property within an investment partnership, there will be
no charge to SDLT. The measure will be retrospective and take effect
for transactions that occurred on or after 19 July 2007. The concern
that the anti-avoidance provisions will apply more than the Government
intended, with regard to an interest in a property within an investment
partnership, was made at some length this time last year in Committee
by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs.
Villiers), and in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for
Ludlow (Mr. Dunne).
The clause
represents one of those occasions when the concerns that they and
various professional groups raised have been recognised. On the one
hand, I welcome the Treasury’s recognition of those concerns,
but this time last year, it was apparent that the legislation in the
2007 Finance Bill was flawed and would have an unfortunate effect. As a
consequence, there has been a period of uncertainty, and I just wanted
to put on record that it is regrettable that clause 94 is necessary
because of flaws in last year’s legislation. They were known to
the professionals and to the equivalent Committee last year.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 94
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
31 agreed to.
Clause 95
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr.
Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): I beg to move that further
consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. I just think that it is
easier to stop here, before the debate on clause 96 starts, because we
have Treasury questions in seven minutes’
time.
The
Chairman: We could have done without the
rationale—but I shall put the question.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Blizzard.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-three minutes past 10 o’clock
till this day at One
o’clock.
|
