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
The defence of International Law in an age of impunity (John Kelly)
Social care and the triple lock (Gordon Lishman)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Ukraine‘s plight means UK must rearm for war now, and not by ten years’ time (George Cunningham)
Observations of an Expat: Ukraine in Trouble (Tom Arms)
The Joy of Six 1593
Do shouty politicians gain long term votes?
Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band: Autumn's Child
Farage let off Reform staffer accused of racist slur
Stalling an Ambush and protecting more than the countryside
Mozart died in 1791. Neil Young believes one 1960s songwriter has the same immortality
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
An article for Lion & Unicorn: Malcolm Saville and the children's holiday adventure
Katharine Pindar 
tom arms 
paul barker 
David Allen 
Mick Taylor 
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)