Friday, 25 May 2012

Stamping out abuse

From: Inside edge

As he gears up for the Autumn Statement, George Osborne is facing the usual pleas for more stamp duty concessions at the bottom end of the market. He’d be better off concentrating on evasion at the top end.

Reports over the weekend estimated that one in three buyers of homes worth more than £1m are evading the 5 per cent rate of stamp duty and that the avoidance could be costing the taxpayer up to £1bn a year. 

According to the Mail, most of the transactions involve Central London properties that are seen by the super-rich as a safe haven for investment - and now, it seems, as a tax haven too. 

And it’s not just stamp duty. The Observer reported that only nine of the 60 apartments in the exclusive One Hyde Park development are registered for the council tax.

Both scams appear to involve buying the property through offshore companies that are out of reach of the UK taxman and the hapless local authority. According to the Mail, ownership of all of the homes in up-market Cornwall Terrace in North London has been transferred to a company registered in the Isle of Man. 

What Rinat Akhmetov and Tamara Ecclestone get up to may seem to belong to a different planet but the flood of investment into London property is a major reason why house prices and rents in the capital remain so high and unaffordable for the rest of the capital’s inhabitants - and by extension why the housing benefit bill is so high for the taxpayer. 

The evasion is said to have got worst since the introduction of the 5 per cent rate on £1m homes in April. However, there is also believed to be widespread evasion further down the scale. 

Could the government be doing more to stop it? Osborne signalled a clampdown in the Budget in March and may try and do more today but the super-rich and their accountants have been lighter on their feet than HM Revenue and Customs so far. 

The new 5 per cent rate was meant to pay for the the stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers on homes worth between £125,000 and £250,000 and the usual suspects are calling for this to be extended beyond March 2012. 

The CML points out that only 13 per cent of the £4bn raised from stamp duty in 2010/11 came from properties worth £250,000 so a longer holiday would not make much difference. The fall in the yield from £6.7bn in 2007/08 is mainly down to a slump in transactions.

However, that £4bn yield last year reveals the true impact of the evasion - if that estimate of £1bn on homes worth over £1m is anywhere near accurate. So perhaps Osborne could look at two more radical reforms. 

First, he could look at the ‘slab’ structure of stamp duty which means that a huge increase in tax is triggered once the price of the house reaches the £250,000, £500,000 and £1m thresholds. The duty on a home worth £249,999 is £2,499 but on £250,000 it is £7,500. On £999,999 it is £40,000 but on £1m it is £50,000. Threshholds like that create a huge incentive for evasion.

Second, he could order a much more serious crackdown on evasion through offshore companies - and a complete review of the taxation of UK property owned by foreign nationals and non-doms. For starters, any property owned by an offshore company is not a home but an investment and it should be taxed like one. 

EDIT 17:25: Today’s Autumn Statement confirms that the stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers will end as planned in March. Research to be published soon will apparently show that ‘the stamp duty land tax relief for first time buyers has been ineffective in increasing the number of first time buyers entering the market’. And the housing strategy provides ‘more effective measures which provide better value for money”

That rather begs the question of why the government went ahead in the first place with something that has turned out to be a waste of money.

Meanwhile the mortgage indemnity fund which was the main feature of the strategy has been attacked by the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute as ‘immoral’.

‘Using taxpayers’ money to underwrite 95% mortgages is immoral – it will draw people into home ownership who will be unable to afford their loans when interest rates eventually rise again,’ it says. ‘And it risks setting off the same sub-prime events that got us into this pickle in the first place.’

As for the massive tax evasion at the other end of the stamp duty scale, the Autumn Statement had nothing to add. 

Readers' comments (6)

  • F451

    Does anyone know if Gaddaffi or any other totaletarian dictator, who seem to be occupying swathes of London housing these days avoided Stamp Duty?

    Actually - on this point, why does Shapps not get hot under the collar about dictators, crimnals, and taxevaders occupying houses in our cities that working people can not afford to live in - surely there should be some kind of cap on Despots and Crime Lords - or are people receiving benefit top ups on their low wages the real criminals according to this government!

    Back to the point, to make a change, the easiest way to reduce tax avoidance is to simplify the tax system, reducing the huge range of taxes and allowances such that a single tax is applied to all - non-payment would then be fairly obvious, and even foreign nationals would have trouble evading it whilst earning here.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melvin Bone

    It's 'totalitarian' and 'Gaddafi'.

    You cannot chase Gaddafi for ctax as he is no more.

    If you can find all the ''totalitarian' regimes you could look up the land registry and cross reference it with the council tax register yourself...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • F451

    So are you for or against the points in the blog Melvin - it is always so hard to tell from your contributions?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melvin Bone

    I think council tax and stamp duty need to stay but needs tightening up with proper enforcements in place for non-payment or non-registration.

    What about you do you have an alternative to your pat answer of tax everybody the same? Do you think we should have a property tax? Your reply was not specific about that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • F451

    I am not minded to argue and alternative to my alternative Melvin - otherwise what would be the point of having put an alternative forward in the first place.

    I see nothing in your argument (it was tempting to stop there, but why be so petty I thought) that convinces me that introducing a simplefied taxation system with one tax to replace the many is not the most efficient and effective way of ensuring everyone contributes fairly to national costs.

    Debate is needed on the advantages of property and income tax, but the debate on the viability and remit, including geographical spread, of local government should be part of this. Once it is clear what should be provided locally is the time to determine how that should be funded.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I also understand how important first-time buyers are to the market; it's vital that they are supported wherever possible. So we'll scrap stamp duty on their first home purchase up to £250,000, removing nine out of 10 first-time buyers from paying any stamp duty at all.

    Pasted from

    Nice promise there Grant Shapps!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register