MPs still fiddling expenses to buy up houses.

Loughton_Monkey

I distinctly remember posting that this would happen, at the time we were all ranting about these pigs in the trough.

If two MP's conspired both to buy houses, and then rent them out to each other, then it's pretty blatant. Probably not 'illegal' though. Especially if (as it might be) done on a more 'commercial' basis. MP1 sets up a letting agency sideline called 'Scam & Bunce letting partnership. MPs 2 through 35 all 'lodge' their carefully selected houses on the books of MP1's agency. They then all 'choose' to go to this agency to rent their house. So all above board now?

... large gin & tonics all round....

chewmylegoff

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

It is legal and it has been tested in several cases. I can't comment on the legal technicalities but it can certainly be done otherwise they wouldn't advertise it. The only risk is that HMRC can contest it, but there is an insurance to cover for this.

really? what are the cases where SDLT schemes currently on offer have been tested in the tax tribunal? pretty sure that HMRC has made several statements about this saying that none of the schemes it has examined (in particular schemes using intermediaries in the sale process) actually offer the avoidance offered, and that they are addressing the issue (with all the vigour that suggests........). HMRC can look back 6 years.

the suggestion that a company would not sell a tax 'avoidance' service which is not legal is spurious as well. no doubt they will have an opinion from counsel saying that in counsel's view the scheme is legal, but that is counsel's view and not the law.

you might be able to buy insurance, but once you have paid 50% of the saving to the architect of the scheme, and bought some insurance to boot (and i suspect the "insurance" is probably just the solicitor promising to refund their fees if the scheme doesn't work - which doesn't help you much if the solicitor goes out of business and vanishes when HMRC decides the scheme they were operating was illegal), are you really going to be saving enough money to make it worth it? not unless the house is very expensive, i suggest.

Graham_Devon

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

It is legal and it has been tested in several cases. I can't comment on the legal technicalities but it can certainly be done otherwise they wouldn't advertise it. The only risk is that HMRC can contest it, but there is an insurance to cover for this.

This isn't really about stamp duty avoidance.

It's about renting out your own home to another MP, who can then claim that as an expense.That MP then pays your mortgage through taxpayer funds.

If they both rent from each other, then they both pay rent to each other, in other words, both paying their mortgages with taxpayer money.

Ching ching.

Its initial rules banned MPs from renting properties from family members, close business associates or “an organisation in which you or a family have an interest”. This was to help to ensure that MPs did not claim the market value for rent from the taxpayer while actually paying far less.

The rules were later clarified to allow one MP to rent from another, provided they were not related or married. It is thought that this rule was specified following requests from MPs.

It seems MPs specifically asked for this amendment to the rules, following the expenses scandal. They now claim that FOI request's for such information will put their security at risk.

This would be obvious and blatant expense fraud in any other situation. The telegraph reports that in many cases, the MP can be renting a house (from another MP) just around the corner from their own home (which an MP rents from them), in an MP "merry go round".

Meanwhile, the MP expenses bill in total rose 25% in 2011/12 from the previous year.

thor

chewmylegoff wrote: »

imagine if they turned their creativity to doing something good. instead of exploiting loopholes, why don't they bloody well identify them in the tax system and sodding well shut them, you know, like good public servants or something.

Don't Get Done, Get Dom : Would it not be great if we could get Dominic Littlewood chasing these fraudsters?

Loughton_Monkey

thor wrote: »

Don't Get Done, Get Dom : Would it not be great if we could get Dominic Littlewood chasing these fraudsters?

He qualifies for one of the most irritating so-called 'personalities' on television. Same as that Matt Allright.

The trouble with Dom is that he is the only one person in the world who thinks he is a 'comedian'. He is not 'funny' by a single iota. He has, I think, watched too many American 'comedians' and thinks that when you say a very mildly light-hearted comment out of the corner of your mouth, it's going to make everyone roll on the floor laughing.

Plus, he is too stupid to understand what an 'MP' is.

thor

Irritating or not they are in programs where cowboys get exposed to the nation. The faces of these scum as they realise they have fallen for a sting is priceless.
Anyway everyone involved in reality and cookery show are far more of a pain than either of those two.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Much ado about nothing.

Makes no difference if an mp rents his house to a stranger or to another mp.

Cost to taxpayer is the same either way.

Benefit to mp is the same either way.

Just the absurd result of banning mp's from claiming mortgage payments for their london house, but allowing them to claim rent for a london house. The obvious result is that they will stop living in their owned houses and move into rented so they can claim. Whether they then rent their owned house to a stranger or another mp makes no difference.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.....Cost to taxpayer is the same either way.....

Unless the agreed reciprocal rents are 20% above what would be considered realistic?

I suppose MPs wouldn't do that sort of thing would they? I am equally positive that they wouldn't 'engineer' massive but bogus 'repair bills' to mark down against their profits....

No. Our politicians are 100% honest and wouldn't lie. Just as 'National Treasure' TV personalities would never abuse children....

CLAPTON

I don't know the facts either, but I know it's absolutely disgraceful.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Much ado about nothing.

Makes no difference if an mp rents his house to a stranger or to another mp.

Cost to taxpayer is the same either way.

Benefit to mp is the same either way.

Just the absurd result of banning mp's from claiming mortgage payments for their london house, but allowing them to claim rent for a london house. The obvious result is that they will stop living in their owned houses and move into rented so they can claim. Whether they then rent their owned house to a stranger or another mp makes no difference.

Sometimes, I just figure your'e having a giraffe on planet Hamish.

The cost isn't the same to the taxpayer either way. This is completely and utterly obvious.

While an MP can claim for mortgage interest, in this situation he can claim rent in it's entirity. Are you seriously suggesting that the mortgage interest element of their mortgage is the same cost as full blown rent in London?

What godly reason can you give that an MP would rent out his home, and move, to rent up the road? Other than profit?

With interest rates as they currently are, and only being able to claim this part of the mortgage, renting to each other could involve massive profits.