The Labour Party has been accused of depriving taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of pounds in stamp duty in the sale of its London headquarters, despite the Chancellor’s clampdown on stamp duty avoidance schemes in his mini-budget last week.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that Labour sold its Westminster headquarters this year using a specially created company. The device, which Labour insists is a normal commercial transaction, cost the Treasury about £210,000 in lost stamp duty.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Politics at School (Geoff Reid)
Zack Polanski on the Fringe (Caron Lindsay)
Enough is enough: Women and girls deserve better (Lib Dem Women)
To paraphrase Shakespeare’ ‘something is rotten in the state of Britain’ (Judy Abel)
Born to be a Refugee… (Dalila Henniche Maali)
Yet another mock castle
Five reasons to stop our sending future leaders to boarding school
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Helen Morgan on the importance of external scrutiny of the NHS
A Canterbury Tale, Richard Rorty and Stanley Kubrick
Buy an 'honour' says Labour think tank - they are just like the Tories
Lib Dems gain seats from both Reform and Labour
Another Reform UK misdemeanor
Jana 
Mick Taylor 
David Le Grice 
David Warren 
Tristan Ward 
3 Comments
We seem to have been posting in parallel – but there is a twist to this story.
http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2006/12/another-thing-tories-and-labour-have-in-common
I’m posting on a train! Wifi on a train! And it works! I’m so very excited…
A land law student writes:
We’ve just been taught that the Land Registration Act 2002 requires registration of the property with 2 months otherwise the transaction is void.
If the Independent report is correct that the sale took place at the end of August but the Land Registry still shows the owner as the Labour party then an interesting question springs to mind (this would be an issue for the purchaser rather than the Labour party admitedly and there might be some technical reasons I’m not aware of why these provisions don’t apply)