News archive

Outer House case concerning the termination of a wind farm agreement relating to property in Aberdeenshire.   In terms of the agreement, Backmuir granted an option to Mountwest to develop a wind farm on the property. The option period was ten years (with a right to extend for a further five years).  Mountwest was entitled to apply for planning permission and other consents but Backmuir had a right to see and make representations about the proposed application before its submission to the planning authority. If Mountwest obtained the necessary permissions, it could choose to exercise the option in which case Backmuir required to grant a twenty five year lease of the property to Mountwest. The agreement also contained a termination provision in the following terms:

“[Backmuir] may determine this Agreement by written notice to [Mountwest] if:-

 [Mountwest] materially fails to perform or observe any of its obligations in this Agreement and such failure or event is incapable of remedy or it is capable of remedy and [Backmuir] have [sic] served on [Mountwest] written notice specifying the failure or event and requiring it to be remedied within a reasonable time (to be specified in the notice and taking into account the nature of the obligation in question) and [Mountwest] has failed to do so;”

In June 2011 Mountwest lodged a planning application but failed to send a copy to Backmuir in advance. When it learned of this, Backmuir wrote to Mountwest advising them that they had breached the agreement and requiring them to remedy the breach “if it was capable of being remedied”. The letter also required Mountwest to provide the documentation required by the agreement within 21 days.  Mountwest then wrote to Backmuir enclosing a copy of the application and asking for comments. However, Backmuir’s solicitors replied purporting to terminate the agreement on the basis that Mountwest had failed to remedy the breach of the agreement.  The issue for the court was whether the agreement had been validly terminated.   Three questions required to be answered.

1. Was there a material failure by Mountwest?
2. If so, was it remediable?
3. Did Backmuir serve a valid notice of termination?

Material failure?
On a commercial construction of the contract Lord Woolman found that there had been a material failure by Mountwest. The purpose of the contract was to facilitate Mountwest’s wish to develop a wind farm at the property. But it contained built in checks drawn in Backmuir’s favour of which the right to make representations about the planning application was the most important. The parties had not intended that right to be illusory. Rather, they provided a mechanism which allowed Backmuir to influence the planning at a critical stage in the procedure.

Remediable?
Lord Woolman found that Mountwest’s failure to send the planning application to Backmuir was plainly capable of remedy; the application being at an early stage and local planning committee not yet having considered it.

Valid termination?
The clause allowing termination of the agreement had been a bespoke irritancy clause. The potency of the clause suggested that Backmuir would have to adhere to its precise requirements (it required Backmuir to serve written notice on Mountwest specifying the failure and requiring it to be remedied within a reasonable time). However, Backmuir’s initial letter notifying the breach had not been clear. It had both expressed doubt as to whether the breach was remediable and had required Mountwest to provide the documentation within 21 days. Lord Woolman found that the reasonable recipient of the letter would read it as requiring delivery of the documentation within 21 days and, if it were done, that would comply with the terms of the agreement.

Another approach was to ask whether the mischief created by Mountwest’s omission had been cured. Lord Woolman concluded that it had. Backmuir had asked for the documents. Mountwest had supplied them in return. If Backmuir had wished to insist on Mountwest withdrawing its application and beginning the process again, that would have been a simple message to convey and could have been easily and clearly set out in its letter.

The purported termination was therefore invalid.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Sheriff Court case relating to the blockage of a sewer on Queen Anne Street in Dunfermline which Scottish Water were responsible for maintaining. A monobloc thought to be causing the blockage was discovered by Scottish Water in February 2009 after excavating and opening the pipe.  Scottish Water claimed damages from Dunne who had carried out reconstruction and resurfacing works for Fife Council in November 2007. The works had involved replacing the surface of the road and pavement with monobloc.

At first instance the sheriff found that on the balance of probabilities the blockage had been caused by the monobloc used by Dunne to resurface the road but was unable to make a finding as to how the monobloc had found its way into the sewer. As the Scottish Water had no direct evidence as to what had happened in 2007 and were not able to prove that there was no other way the block could have entered the sewer, the sheriff refused Scottish Water’s action for damages.

However, the sheriff principal allowed an appeal, finding that Scottish Water’s evidence was sufficient to raise a prima facie inference of negligence which had not been answered by Dunne. As such, damages of £12,585 were awarded to Scottish Water.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Water here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Let’s start with Gordon Brown’s comments and in particular his claim that devolving tax and fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament automatically means a “race to the bottom” for tax rates and in particular business tax rates.  There are a number of problems with this statement.  I will simply point out two.  Tax competition already exists.  Not just within the European Union but throughout the world.  Then there is the fact that the underlying law, for example tax reliefs, are just as important as tax rates to business.  Creating a Scottish tax system is also a once in a generation chance to create a simpler and more progressive tax system.  This opportunity is not available to the UK.  Evidence that the present Scottish Government is already putting this opportunity into practice is shown by its excellent consultation on a Land and Buildings Transaction Tax.  My earlier blog on this can be found here. 

Again on tax powers for the Scottish Parliament.  I was disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to see another patronising picture accompanying an article in Tax Adviser on the subject of the tax powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  First we had a man in a kilt holding a whisky bottle and this month a scene from the movie Braveheart.    

Now to some incredible news.  HM Treasury is going to employ someone in Scotland.  I wonder if this has anything to with a certain referendum.  Of course it does.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  I did find it amusing that the position ends shortly after the proposed referendum date.  I should not be so cynical.  It is good that HM Treasury is going to try and find someone to appease the natives.  I suspect they have run out of gunboats. 

Now to HMRC.  HMRC is clearly under strain.  In addition to having to deal with numerous devolution issues its budget is being reduced by 15% whilst having to increase tax revenues brought in by compliance activity by £7bn per year by 2014/15.  Not surprisingly HMRC staff have begun “working to rule” to highlight ‘problems caused by the job and budget cuts. 

I was also interested to see that HMRC has published a draft code of governance for resolving tax disputes.  This follows the controversy surrounding some corporate tax disputes of which it was accused of agreeing over-generous resolutions.  An article on this issue can be found here.  

Clearly the UK Government is keen to show it is clamping down on tax evasion.  HMRC has paid out more than £1m in rewards to tax evasion informants since the start of the financial crisis.  An article on this can be found here.  And just to reinforce the point HMRC has published its rogues gallery of tax evaders and fraudsters.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Now to an issue I have blogged on recently.  The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator is reportedly to investigate 50 private schools to see if they meet the “benefit to the public” criteria in order to maintain their charitable status.  An article on this from the Sunday Herald can be found here.  This is an issue that still needs to properly debated.     

Now to the strange world of caravans and an article from the Herald.  It seems that a little-known tax loophole is set to cost Scotland’s councils millions of pounds a year in revenue.  Each caravan in a caravan park can apply for rates relief, which in turn cuts the overall bill for the park considerably.  It seems that few people knew about this loophole until the owners of caravans in the Rosneath Castle Caravan Park, near Helensburgh, first began using it. The 300 caravan owners at the park have now bombarded the Clydebank business ratings assessors’ office with letters and phone calls, each seeking to save a few hundred pounds per year in council rates.  The article from the Herald can be found here. 

Now to the USA and news that the Democrats are split over estate tax reform.  Democratic Party members of the US Senate have rejected President Obama’s proposal for a 45% top rate of federal estate tax on individual estates worth more than $3.5m.  The tax will rise sharply at the end of this year if Congress fails to agree on reform.  An article on this from Bloomberg can be found here.

Tax is also an issue in the Presidential election.  The Democrats have succeeded in turning the finances of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into a lead news story.  Pressure is growing on Romney to reveal tax returns.  There are accusations that he failed to disclose a Swiss bank account, and even that he participated in the US Internal Revenue Service’s 2009 offshore tax amnesty.  An article on this from Forbes can be found here.

Let’s finish with an old favourite.  It seems that there have been some financial transaction tax stirrings in both Korea and France.  In order to bring the taxation of derivatives in line with other earned income and introduce another revenue source, the Korean Government has announced plans to impose a transaction tax on index options and futures.  France has also partially implanted its own financial transaction tax.  Although a small start, covering only shares in larger companies, and at 0.2%, it’s still lower than UK stamp duty on which it is modelled. Articles on the Korean proposal can be found here and the French proposal here.

Have a good weekend.

Sheriff Court case relating to the service of a calling up notice by sheriff officer. The notice was posted through the door by the sheriff officer having established that the debtor (Mr Stevenson) lived at the address and given 6 audible knocks (in accordance with the rules of court).

Mr Stevenson argued that, as the notice had been not served on the Defender personally and had been put through the letter box, the bank had failed to serve it properly in terms of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform(Scotland) Act 1970 (section 19(6)). Mr Stevenson contended that the bank’s action under the 1970 Act should therefore be dismissed.

Sheriff George Jamieson found that s19(6) of the 1970 Act permits certain methods of service but does not contain exhaustive provisions on the service of calling up notices. A sheriff officer was entitled to serve the notice acting in his official capacity as an officer of court in accordance with the rules for citation set out in the relevant legislation and rules of court. Consequently, Mr Stevenson’s motion to dismiss the action was refused.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Sheriff Court case considering a lease of residential property at 39 Calside Road in Dumfries.  The landlords (Calmac) were seeking to recover possession of the property from the tenant at the end of the term. The issue for the court was whether the lease was a short assured tenancy (in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988).

For a tenancy to qualify as a short assured tenancy, it must be “for a term of not less than 6 months” (s 32(1) of the 1988 Act).

The lease stated:

 “The Date of Entry will be 29th April 2011. The Let will run from that date until 28th October 2011…”

The general rule for calculating time periods, known as the civilis computatio, is that the whole of the day on which a period commences is excluded and the whole of the day on which it ends is included (days being indivisible for the purposes of the rule).

Following that rule, the period of the lease in question would be one day short of 6 months. The sheriff rejected Calmac’s argument that there is a general exception to the rule for leases (on the basis that the date of entry should always be counted when computing the term of a lease).  However, after considering the authorities, he found that use of the words ‘date of entry’ in the lease meant that it had been contemplated that the tenant would take entry on that date thus creating an exception to the general rule[1].

Consequently, the lease ran from midnight on the 28^th April meaning that its term was exactly 6 months and the lease was correctly constituted as a short assured tenancy.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Appeal to the Inner House in respect of decision of the Outer House on 1 September 2011.  The case relates to a disposition of flats at Queen’s Gardens in Aberdeen. Skene disponed the property to Mr Pocock in 2000. However, a page of the disposition was substituted changing the recipient of the property to Howemoss Properties Limited (a company of which Mr Pocock was a director) and the price (possibly for SDLT reasons) without Skene’s consent. In 2002 Howemoss sold one of the flats to a Mr Torr.

In 2003 Mr Pocock was sequestrated and Mr Alexander was appointed as permanent trustee and began to investigate Mr Pocock’s property transactions. A judicial factor was also appointed in respect of the law firm which had acted for Mr Pocock and who, following an investigation, produced a report in June 2004 outlining the changes made to the disposition. The trustee raised successful actions in relation to other properties transferred by Mr Pocock but in April 2005 was still trying to locate the conveyancing file relating to the Queen’s Gardens property. In July 2007 the trustee received an opinion from senior counsel relating to the Queen’s Gardens property and wrote to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and Mr Torr’s solicitors (in August and September 2007) indicating that he intended to raise an action proving the tenor of the original disposition in favour of Mr Pocock. The police became involved in November 2007 and in early 2008 the trustee instructed agents to commence proceedings.

Mr Torr granted a standard security over the flat in favour of Abbey National plc in February 2008 at which point Abbey National are believed to have discovered that the disposition in favour of Mr Torr had not been registered (despite being granted 6 years previously) although the extent of their title investigation was unknown.

In the Outer House Lord Uist rejected arguments by Abbey National that:

1. the trustee’s action was barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence; and
2. the trustee was personally barred from reducing the Howemoss disposition (meaning Howemoss had no title to grant the disposition in favour of Mr Torr) as a consequence of the common law principle of adoption of forgery.

The Inner House refused Abbey National’s appeal and indeed went further allowing the trustees cross appeal to the effect that Abbey National’s arguments relating to mora, taciturnity and acquiescence were irrelevant.

Mora, taciturnity and acquiescence
It was necessary to consider all the circumstances of the case. However, Abbey National’s arguments referred only to the date of the judicial factor’s report (in 2004) and the date the action was raised (2008) which was to ignore the events which occurred between those dates. Those events did not support a categorisation of the trustee’s conduct as taciturnity and acquiescence:

“On the contrary, the steps taken by the [trustee] amounted to investigation, consultation, the seeking of appropriate advice, warnings to both the Keeper and to a current heritable proprietor (Mr Torr), and the raising of an action. For this reason alone we find Abbey’s averments of taciturnity and acquiescence to be inadequate and irrelevant. Furthermore we agree with senior counsel for the [trustee] that the [trustee] was entitled responsibly to seek information and advice before raising a court action with all its consequences. In other words, while the [trustee] was alerted to the problem in June 2004 by [the judicial factor’s] report, he was entitled to take the steps he did before launching into a litigation which, if not well-based in fact and law, could result in considerable losses to the sequestrated estate.”

Adoption of forgery
The crucial element  of adoption of forgery is that a person who knows about the forgery, and knows that a third party is being misled into relying upon the forgery, says or does nothing to alert the third party to the problem. In effect it was therefore necessary for Abbey National to prove that the trustee not only knew that the disposition was falsified, but also that Abbey National were intending to lend Mr Torr money in reliance upon that falsified disposition, and yet did nothing to prevent Abbey from relying upon the falsified disposition. Abbey National did not argue that they relied upon the falsified disposition itself – the nature and extent of their investigation into the title in respect of 5 Queen’s Gardens being unclear.  Perhaps more importantly, there are no arguments made on Abbey National’s behalf that the trustee knew that Abbey National were, or were likely to, rely upon the falsified disposition. Furthermore, the trustees actings (in particular the letter to Mr Torr’s solicitor), did not disclose a picture of an adoption of forgery. On the contrary, the trustee had taken active steps to warn Mr Torr’s agents that his disposition was from a non-owner and that court proceedings challenging that disposition would be raised.

The full report is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Outer House case concerning a GP practice operating at the Terra Nova Medical Centre on Dura Street, Dundee.  Michael John Morris and others (the pursuers) were doctors who had retired from the practice. They argued that they were the current tenants of the centre and that (following a number of changes in the composition of the practice) all bar one of the current partners and the partnership practising at the centre had no right or title to occupy the premises.  One of the original partners (and tenant under the lease), Dr Ritchie remained in the practice but chose neither to pursue the action nor raise defences to it.

The pursuers had bought the centre from the Dundee City Council in 1993 then entered a sale and leaseback transaction with MPIF Holdings Ltd in 2006. The lease contained a general prohibition on assignation and subletting but allowed assignations between partners in the practice without the landlord’s consent whilst requiring notification of assignations to the landlord. Despite the pursuers’ retirement from the practice, there had been no assignation of the lease to the new partners. Indeed the new partners had refused to accept an assignation of the lease from the pursuers. As a consequence, the pursuers and Dr Ritchie retained the tenancy obligations meaning that if the partnership failed to pay the rent, MPIF’s claim would be against the pursuers and Dr Ritchie rather than the partnership.

The new partners and partnership contended that none of the pursuers had occupied the premises as individuals and argued that the partnership paid the rent and occupied the centre with knowledge of the landlord and the agreement of the tenants (i.e. the pursuers and Dr Ritchie).  As such, a right of occupancy subsidiary to the lease (possibly similar to a licence) had been created.

Lord Woolman rejected these arguments:

“The transfer of a real right, which includes “a right to occupy or use land”, requires to be in writing: Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 s. 1(2) and 1(7). The defenders do not point to any document in support of their claim. Even if such an agreement could be established by actings, many questions would arise about the contours of the agreement. Who are the parties? When was it made? What is its duration? Was a new agreement made each time a new partner was assumed? Can the permission be withdrawn and if so by whom – the landlord or the pursuers or both? The complete absence of specification on these points is in my view unsurprising. It demonstrates that there was no such agreement. It is also unclear how this private arrangement would fit with the Lease. I cannot see how an agreement arose which is in some way derivative of the lease, yet contradicts its terms.”

Consequently, it was held that the new partners and partnership had no right or title to occupy the centre.

Lord Woolman also rejected an argument by the new partners that the pursuers had no title to sue due to the absence of Dr Ritchie from the action. This argument was based on the rule of common property that the consent of all common owners must be obtained in decisions relating to the management of the property (including in the granting of a lease and in a removing). However, after reviewing the authorities, Lord Woolman noted a modification of the rule to the effect that a mere squatter would not be entitled to a defence based on the rule. As it had been held that the new partners and partnership were in occupation without a right, they were therefore not entitled to query the pursuers’ title to sue.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

The “slab” basis of Stamp Duty Land Tax on occasion encourages purchasers to try and include part of the purchase price in the exempt “fixtures and fittings” category.  This was just such a case.  HMRC are of course well aware of this ploy

This case concerned whether £800 worth of fitted units in a garage were “land” and therefore subject to SDLT.   If included as land the SDLT bill increased from £2,500 to £7,524.

The Tribunal concluded “that both the worktop and the units were land.  The worktop was fixed to the house and made it possible to use that part of the garage as a working area.   The units had a small degree of affixation but were in place to make the garage a useful storage and work area — a facility which enhanced the house.”

The full report from the First-tier Tribunal can be found here. 

Hopefully this will be one of the issues dealt with by the introduction of a Scottish Land and Buildings Tax in 2015.   

Note by Sheriff Peter J Braid relating to a case concerning a standard security over property at Mucklets Crescent in Musselburgh. The debtor had died and her estate had been sequestrated.

Following the service of calling up notices and the expiry of the notice period, Accord (the creditor) sought declarator that:

1. Miss Edwards’ representative was in default (within the meaning of standard condition 9(1)(a) of schedule 3 to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970);
2. the subjects were not used to any extent for residential purposes within the meaning of section 20(2A) of the 1970 Act; and
3. Accord had the right to sell the subjects, to enter into possession of them and exercise all other rights and powers under the standard security, in terms of the 1970 Act.

The question arose as to whether Accord was entitled to seek declarator by ordinary action or whether they were bound to proceed under s24 of the 1970 Act (which provides for certain pre-action requirements to provide protection for the debtor).

The sheriff agreed with Accord’s argument that it was not necessary to proceed under s24. In terms of s20, which contains the right of sale, “where the standard security is over land…used to any extent for residential purposes“, the creditor can only exercise its rights by proceeding under s23A (which deals with a voluntary surrender and had no application to this case) or under s24. However, in this case, the property was not being occupied by any person at the time of enforcement and, as such, it could not be said that they were being used by anyone for any purpose, let alone used for residential purposes. The point of time at which the use was to be considered was that at which the creditor wished to exercise its remedies.

The purpose of the pre-action requirements was to give the debtor information and assistance. Since there was no living debtor, nor anyone using the house for residential purposes, it would be impossible for Accord to comply with the pre-action requirements. Further, the court had no power to dispense with those requirements. The sheriff agreed that the court should therefore proceed upon the basis that residential protections did not apply, meaning that the action should continue as an ordinary action with no pre-action requirement.

The sheriff noted that infelicities in the drafting of the Act could result in problems arising where the subjects were occupied; a creditor not necessarily being in a position to know what use is being made of the subjects. Moreover, there may be cases where the debtor has died but the subjects are still being used for residential purposes. The question would then arise as to how a creditor is to comply with the pre-action requirements.

The full note is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Let’s start with “Land Reform”.  The First Minister has set up a group of experts to look at this issue.  The First Minister wants the group “to deliver radical change” for both rural and urban areas.  It will be chaired by former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Dr Alison Elliot.  More information on the review can be found here.  One factor that is noticeable by its absence is taxation.  This should also be a review of how we tax our land and property.  If not included this is an opportunity missed.

Who is to blame for the state of the economy?  You would have though bankers might be high up on any list.  However, it seems there is another favoured suspect, tradesmen.  David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary at the UK Treasury, called people who pay tradesmen in cash “morally wrong”.  He has also claimed that the UK Government has missed out on about £2bn on taxes on these “off the books” transactions.

In response the regularly excellent Ian Bell wrote an article titled “Plumbers dodging VAT aren’t to blame for economic mess”.  His article in the Herald article can be found here.  This is one of the best articles I have read recently.

Gauke was also not helped when it transpired that Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have engaged in the practice of paying tradesmen cash.  Gauke’s full speech can be found here.

The tradesmen issue aside, there were many good things in Gauke’s speech.  This includes a new UK Treasury consultation paper on giving HMRC new powers to force tax firms to disclose clients who are using tax avoidance schemes.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  More information on this consultation can be found here.  It is though still surprising that the UK Treasury has taken so long to even consider measures such as this.

It is always worth putting figures in context.  A new study for the lobbying group Tax Justice Network claims that wealthy individuals worldwide are holding at least $21 trillion in bank accounts in low-tax jurisdictions.  This dwarfs the £2bn figure mentioned above.  A report on this from the STEP Journal can be found here.

Now to the Scottish Government’s consultation on its proposed Land and Buildings Transaction Tax.  The consultation can be found here.  The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax will replace the current UK Stamp Duty Land Tax from April 2015.  This is important as it is effectively the beginning of a Scottish tax system.  The consultation is also of a standard that we will now expect.   Previous papers on corporation tax and excise duty, although not consultations, were simply not good enough.  Lessons clearly have been learned.  The consultation ends on 30 August 2012.

Now to the North Sea.  George Osborne has pledged £500m in tax breaks for companies developing the Cygnus gas field in the North Sea.  In addition two Chinese firms announced major acquisitions worth over £10bn in North Sea oil firms.  More on these stories can be found on BBC news website here and the Press & Journal here.  It seems that there is a great deal of life left in the North Sea and not just in Scottish waters.

One of the most important art objects ever donated to Scotland’s national collection in lieu of inheritance tax has gone on display. The Hamilton-Rothschild Tazza, a Byzantine sardonyx bowl mounted on a 16th-century gold stand, came from the estate of Edmund de Rothschild, who died in 2009, under the “Acceptance in Lieu scheme”.  A report on this from the STV website can be found here.

Now to an issue I have blogged about before.  An investigation for the Sunday Herald has shown that due to the charitable status of fee-paying schools in Scotland, while local authority schools have to pay full non-domestic rates, because many fee-paying schools are charities they receive an 80 per cent discount on their rates.  The investigation suggests the discount has saved private schools in the six local authority areas investigated £10m over three years. An article on this issue from the Sunday Herald article can be found here.

This issue shows how complicated devolution can be.  Non-domestic rates and charitable status are devolved matters.  Tax relief for charities is a reserved matter even under the provisions of the 2012 Scotland Act. 

Interestingly in the same week Stephen Twigg, Shadow UK Education Secretary, has said that Labour may remove the charitable status of some private schools.  Twigg warned that a UK Labour Government could enact legislation so that private schools not serving the community would lose their charitable status.

The UK Government has finally confirmed that fuel duty, air passenger duty and road tax are not environmental taxes.  This means that they are “revenue raisers” pure and simple.  The UK Treasury now defines an environmental tax as a charge which is explicitly linked to Westminster’s environmental aims, aimed at promoting behaviour change and is structured so that people pay more based on the potential damage caused to the environment.  An article on this from Holyrood can be found here.

I think I will finish with China and its attempt to attract more foreign investment.  China has slashed from 10% to 5% the withholding taxes it levies on profits repatriated by foreign companies, and on dividends paid to foreign shareholders of Chinese-quoted shares. The concessions apply only to companies based in double tax treaty partner countries, excluding the US.  A FT China article on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.