LBTT Guidance: When Bond Relief is Unavailable on Asset Control Acquisition

When AFIB Relief Is Lost Because a Bond-Holder Controls the Underlying Asset

AFIB relief for Land and Buildings Transaction Tax may not apply if one bond-holder, or connected bond-holders acting together, gains exclusive management and control of the land or other asset behind the bond. If that control is acquired within 30 days of the first transaction, relief can be denied from the start; if it arises later, relief already given may be withdrawn, unless a narrow exception applies.

• Relief is aimed at genuine bond arrangements and can be lost if a bond-holder’s rights go beyond passive investment and give effective control of the underlying asset.
• Control exists where the bond rights include management and control of the asset and those rights can be exercised to the exclusion of other bond-holders.
• The rule applies both to a single bond-holder and to connected bond-holders whose rights together give exclusive control.
• If control is acquired within 30 days of the effective date of the first transaction, relief on that first transaction is not available; if acquired later, relief may be clawed back if the statutory conditions are met.
• Two limited exceptions may preserve relief: where control was acquired unintentionally and corrected as soon as reasonably practicable, or where a bond-holder is only underwriting a public offer and does not exercise control.
• In practice, the key issues are the exact legal rights in the bond documents, later transfers of those rights, the timing of any change, and whether any investors are connected.

Scroll down for the full analysis.

When AFIB relief is lost because a bond-holder controls the underlying asset

This page explains a restriction on Land and Buildings Transaction Tax relief for alternative finance investment bonds (AFIBs). The basic idea is that the relief is not meant to apply if a bond-holder, alone or together with connected bond-holders, ends up controlling the land or other underlying asset behind the bond. The timing of when control is acquired matters, and there are two limited exceptions.

What this rule is about

AFIB relief is designed for a particular type of alternative finance arrangement. In broad terms, the legislation allows relief on transactions that are part of that structure. But the relief is not available if the arrangement stops looking like a genuine bond structure and instead gives one bond-holder, or a connected group of bond-holders, effective control over the underlying asset.

The rule is aimed at situations where rights under the bond go beyond a passive investment position and enable a bond-holder to manage and control the bond assets to the exclusion of other bond-holders.

What the official source says

The official guidance says AFIB relief is not available on the first or second transaction if control of the underlying asset is acquired by either:

• a single bond-holder, or
• a group of connected bond-holders.

According to the guidance, control is acquired where both of the following are true:

• the rights of the bond-holder under the AFIB include a right of management and control of the assets, and
• the bond-holder, or the connected group acting jointly, acquires enough rights to exercise that management and control to the exclusion of any other bond-holders.

The timing rule is important:

• if control is acquired within 30 days of the effective date of the first transaction, relief for the first transaction is not available at all;
• if control is acquired after that 30-day period, relief for the first transaction is treated as withdrawn, provided conditions A to C in schedule 8 paragraph 24 are met.

The source also says there are two situations where AFIB relief can still remain available even though control is acquired.

The first is an unintentional acquisition of control. Relief may still be available if:

• when the rights were acquired, the bond-holder or all connected bond-holders did not know and had no reason to suspect that those rights would enable them to control the bond assets to the exclusion of other bond-holders, and
• once any relevant bond-holder becomes aware of that position, sufficient rights are transferred away as soon as reasonably practicable so that exclusive control is no longer possible.

The second is underwriting. Relief may still be available where the bond-holder:

• underwrites a public offer of rights under the bond, and
• does not exercise the right of management and control of the bond asset.

For this purpose, underwriting means agreeing to make capital payments under the bond if other persons do not make those payments.

What this means in practice

The practical question is not simply whether a bond-holder has a large economic stake. The question is whether the rights attached to the bond amount to effective control over the underlying asset.

That means you need to look closely at the legal rights created by the bond documentation. A person may hold a significant proportion of rights under the bond without necessarily having exclusive management and control. Equally, a combination of rights held by connected persons may together produce that result.

The rule also distinguishes between:

• a case where control exists very soon after the first transaction, in which case relief is denied from the outset, and
• a case where control arises later, in which case relief already given may be clawed back if the statutory conditions are met.

That distinction matters for compliance and transaction planning. A structure that appears to qualify at completion can still create a later tax problem if rights are reallocated and control emerges afterwards.

How to analyse it

A sensible way to analyse the issue is to work through these questions.

• What are the rights attached to the bond? In particular, do they include rights of management and control over the underlying asset?
• Who holds those rights? Is it one bond-holder or a group of connected bond-holders?
• Do those rights, looked at together, allow that person or group to exercise management and control to the exclusion of other bond-holders?
• When was that level of control acquired? Was it within 30 days of the effective date of the first transaction, or later?
• If control was acquired later, do the statutory conditions for withdrawal of relief under paragraph 24 apply?
• Could either exception apply? Was the acquisition genuinely inadvertent and corrected as soon as reasonably practicable, or was the bond-holder merely underwriting a public offer without exercising control?

In practice, this is likely to require a careful review of the transaction documents, any later transfers of rights, and the relationship between potentially connected bond-holders.

Example

Suppose an AFIB structure is set up and relief is claimed on the first transaction. At that point, no single investor can control the underlying land. Two weeks later, one bond-holder acquires additional rights under the bond. Those rights now allow that bond-holder to manage the land asset to the exclusion of all other bond-holders.

On the guidance, relief for the first transaction would not be available, because control was acquired within 30 days of the effective date.

Now change the facts. Assume the same control only arises six months later because rights are transferred between bond-holders. In that case, the issue is not initial availability but withdrawal of relief already given, assuming the statutory conditions for withdrawal are satisfied.

A different result may follow if the bond-holder acquired the rights without knowing, and with no reason to suspect, that exclusive control would arise, and the position was corrected as soon as reasonably practicable after the problem became known.

Why this can be difficult in practice

The source rule is short, but applying it can be fact-sensitive.

First, “management and control” is a legal and practical question. It depends on the rights actually granted, not just on labels used in the documents.

Second, the legislation looks at exclusive control. That can be difficult where rights are split across several investors, or where connected persons each hold part of the relevant power. You need to consider whether they can act jointly and whether other bond-holders are effectively excluded.

Third, the connected persons point can change the outcome. A bond-holder who does not individually control the asset may still be treated as part of a connected group that does.

Fourth, the first exception contains knowledge tests and a requirement to act “as soon as reasonably practicable”. Those are inherently factual questions. The availability of the exception may depend on what the parties knew, what they should have suspected, and how quickly they acted once the issue was discovered.

Finally, the underwriting exception is narrow. It does not preserve relief simply because a person underwrites an offer. The bond-holder must also refrain from exercising the right of management and control of the bond asset.

Key takeaways

• AFIB relief can fail if a bond-holder, or connected bond-holders together, acquire exclusive management and control of the underlying asset.
• The timing matters: control acquired within 30 days can prevent relief from being available, while control acquired later can lead to relief being withdrawn.
• There are only limited exceptions, mainly for inadvertent acquisition corrected promptly and for underwriting without exercising control.

This page was last updated on

Useful article? You may find it helpful to read the original guidance here: LBTT Guidance: When Bond Relief is Unavailable on Asset Control Acquisition

View all LBTT Guidance Pages Here