Section 320: Nature of item apportioned on sale of estate or interest in land
1305.This section preserves the capital or revenue nature of an amount due, or payable in arrears, apportioned to a seller on the sale of land. It is based on section 40(3)(b) of ICTA.
1306.Most of section 40 of ICTA is not rewritten because it has become redundant following the application of Schedule D Case I principles to Schedule A.
1307.The original predecessor of section 40 of ICTA (section 20 of FA 1964) was introduced to deal with a specific problem. That was reflecting, in the calculation of income from land, any apportionments of rent (as a receipt or an expense) that took place between seller and purchaser when land was sold. That required two kinds of rule. The first were calculation rules. They were necessary because at the time section 20 of FA 1964 was introduced the charge on income from land was based on entitlement to incoming rent and payment of outgoing rent. Where there were apportionments on sale there might be neither entitlement nor payment by the “right” person. The second were timing rules to ensure that the consequential adjustments fell in the right tax year.
1308.As a result of the 1995 Schedule A reforms these rules are no longer necessary. Two main factors lead to this conclusion.
1309.The first relates to the object of charge under Schedule A: the profit of a Schedule A business. For there to be a Schedule A business a person has to be exploiting United Kingdom land for rent (section 15(1)1(1) of ICTA). In order to be a receipt (or outgoing) of the Schedule A business it is enough that an amount relates to a period when the person was exploiting the land.
1310.The second factor relates to the time when income within the charge is brought into account. The accruals principle of accounting has been imported from Schedule D Case I into Schedule A. The accruals principle brings an item into account in the period to which it relates. So the rules in section 40(1) to (3) of ICTA about the time of receipt and payment are unnecessary.
1311.Section 40(4) of ICTA is similarly now unnecessary. It provides that any reference in section 40(1) and (2) of ICTA to a party to a contract includes a person to whom the rights and obligations of that party under the contract have passed by assignment or otherwise. Since the test of whether or not an item is to be brought into account under Schedule A is whether it arises from a person’s exploitation of land then whether the rights and obligations under the contract pass by assignment or otherwise, the person to whom they pass will be the person exploiting the land.
1312.Section 40(4A) of ICTA is not rewritten. It is linked to the parts of section 40 of ICTA that are unnecessary and also gives in certain circumstances the wrong result.
1313.Section 40(3)(b) of ICTA has a clear anti-avoidance purpose that is preserved in section 320. But it also contains a timing rule. The timing rule in section 40(3)(b) of ICTA is not rewritten because the accruals principle again attributes the apportioned amount to the correct period.
1314.Section 320 rewrites the anti-avoidance part of section 40(3)(b) of ICTA which preserves the capital or revenue nature of any amount due or paid in arrears and apportioned by the buyer to the seller on the sale of land.
1315.This rule was originally introduced to deal with the common (at the time) practice whereby, under normal conditions of sale, that part of any rent paid in arrears, apportioned to the seller and to be paid to him or her by the purchaser, was adjusted by means of an addition to the sale price. As capital gains tax did not exist the apportioned rent taken as increased sale price escaped tax altogether.
1316.Capital gains tax now takes away much of the incentive to deal with rent in this way. But this rule may still serve a useful deterrent purpose and needs to be preserved.
1317.The time of apportionment referred to in the section is normally the time of completion of the sale.
