tommerralls wrote:If a property was transferred to the owner of a house to hold on a bare trust then the SDLT at the time of transfer was the responsibility of the beneficiary of the trust and not the trustee. I think this is correct?
Correct
tommerralls wrote:Assuming SDLT was paid at that time on the consideration (if due) then the subsequent transfer of the property to the beneficiary should not give rise to a second SDLT charge as the beneficiary has already paid on the original transfer. Is this also correct?
Correct - provided that section 75A (anti-avoidance rule where there are scheme transactions) is not in point (on the facts presented it does not appear to be in point). Whilst it is a valuation issue and I am not a valuer, my understanding is that a bare legal title has no/nominal value.
tommerralls wrote:if the beneficiary was paying consideration because that would contradict the claim that there was a bare trust?
Why would that contradict a bare trust? Surely it supports it (I assume that you know what a bare trust is?)