The advice 'never believe everything you read in the papers' was as true as ever recently when it came to what used to be called Fleet Street’s powers of prediction of the contents of the chancellor’s autumn statement. In particular, what the press, in the context of property transactions, still quaintly refers to as stamp duty - more correctly stamp duty land tax (SDLT) - received lavish front page coverage in a number of newspapers. There would be a 'crackdown' on 'loopholes' with the confident anticipation being that there would be an imposition of a charge to SDLT on the sale of shares in companies whose sole or main assets are real property.

Instead, the autumn statement and the consequential draft legislation published on 6 December produced: the withdrawal of first-time buyer’s relief; some enabling legislation for the SDLT disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime and some changes to the NHS bodies which can acquire property interests without a charge to SDLT. It is hardly the stuff to quicken the pulse.

So, lapsing into newspaper speak, Oligarchs (or, indeed, anyone else with the requisite financial resources) can still buy and sell offshore companies whose sole asset is a prime piece of central London residential real estate without any SDLT or even stamp duty on the shares. Why might this still be the case?

When SDLT was first going through its gestation process, in 2002/2003, a charge to SDLT on transfers of shares in so-called property rich companies was considered and there was consultation on this. There are examples of such a tax in a number of other jurisdictions. However, by the time the legislation appeared, such a SDLT charge was noticeable by its absence.

Imposing a charge to SDLT on transfers of shares in such companies is less straightforward than newspaper editors might think. If the level of property assets is set at, say, 75% would this catch a wider category of company than intended, such as property investment companies or house builders? The charge could be restricted to companies owing residential property but could the limits be manipulated?

If someone resident in a Gulf state sells to someone resident in a former Soviet republic all of the shares in a Panamanian company owning a Belgravia town house, how would HM Revenue and Customs police this? There would be no change in registered owner at the Land Registry. Would HMRC impose a charge on property on entry into a company only lifting it on payment of the appropriate SDLT?

Perhaps more cynically, the ability to acquire property free of SDLT in this manner, might be thought to lend buoyancy to one of the few parts of the UK property market which is prospering. Of course, it could be said: how does the company acquire the property without SDLT? The answer is cross the palm of an adviser with appropriate amounts of silver.

Anthony Hennessy is a tax specialist and consultant at niche property firm Brecher Solicitors