The Supreme Tax Court has accepted the sale of a building three years after the event as an appropriate indication of the then market value where other factors point to lack of change in the interim.
Under the relevant provisions of the Valuation Act, the market value of commercial property is to be determined by reference to a formula wherever necessary as a basis for taxation, unless the taxpayer can furnish objective evidence of a lower value. Generally, the proceeds from the sale of the site are accepted as objective evidence if the sale took place within a year of the event in respect of which the valuation is required. If the sale falls outside this period, it is not seen by the official Guidelines as being sufficiently "recent" to serve as a reliable indication of the current value. The tax offices then automatically revert to the official formula. The Supreme Tax Court has now held, however, that strict adherence to the time limit of one year before or after the event was too rigid an approach and that earlier or later sales could still be accepted as evidence for a lower valuation if supported by other objective factors. In the case concerned these were a confirmation from the valuation service run by the land registry that local land values had not changed during the intervening period, and that rent received from the tenant had not changed either. The sale supporting the taxpayer's contention of a lower value took place three years later and was to the tenant of the building. The Supreme Tax Court did not comment on any possible influence of the tenancy on the sales price.
This case concerned an inheritance. However, it is directly relevant to real estate transfer tax levied on indirect transfers of property through the acquisition of 95% of the shares in the company owning it, as well as to events under the Reconstructions Tax Act or under other rules requiring transactions or their individual parts to be taken up at market value despite lack of formal consideration. In most such cases recourse is ultimately had to the Valuation Act, as was the case here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Jonathan Sheehan gives an Irish perspective in the October 2016 edition of The American Lawyer on the European Commission's decision that Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to EUR13 billion, plus interest, to Apple.
Three of my favourite topics feature in this issue of the Denton Briefing – tax, Bond and beer. But not necessarily in that order and not necessarily for the right reasons.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).