MPs - Profiting at Public Expense
The Times reports today that the new MPs' expenses watchdog (IPSA) has finally bared its teeth.
Apparently MPs who have profited through the discredited 'second homes allowances' - are to be required to repay at least some of the profits - and quite right too.
The worst offenders acted like property speculators - by acquiring ever more expensive properties, moving up the property ladder at public expense - often while avoiding capital gains tax.
Here's a summary of what the Times has to say - read the full article online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
"MPs could be forced to pay back profits on second homes"
"Sir Ian Kennedy said that he was replacing a system of expenses that enabled MPs to indulge
MPs face bills running into tens of thousands of pounds after a challenge issued last night by the man brought in to clean up the expenses system.
Profits made by MPs on second homes bought with the help of the taxpayer should be “surrendered”, Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) told The Times.
In his first newspaper interview Sir Ian called on the Treasury and MPs to show that they were serious by depriving MPs of some of the gains that they made on their second homes.
“This is a central question for me. Gains made in that way should not be retained. The mechanism for doing it is the only question we have to decide,” he said.
If Revenue & Customs had power to assess such gains it should start doing it. If it was not able to do so, Parliament should give it the powers before the election, Sir Ian said, promising that sitting MPs and candidates would know by the end of March the final details of their new expenses regime.
It was unclear last night how far back the repayments would go.
MPs who lose or stand down could still have to pay a bill for the gains that they had made in the previous six months.
Sir Ian said that it was for the Exchequer to manage how the gain was surrendered and it might be that Parliament would need to pass new regulations or some other legislative formula.
“The view Kelly took and we take is that that gain ought to be surrendered because it is made courtesy of the taxpayer,” he said."
Apparently MPs who have profited through the discredited 'second homes allowances' - are to be required to repay at least some of the profits - and quite right too.
The worst offenders acted like property speculators - by acquiring ever more expensive properties, moving up the property ladder at public expense - often while avoiding capital gains tax.
Here's a summary of what the Times has to say - read the full article online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
"MPs could be forced to pay back profits on second homes"
"Sir Ian Kennedy said that he was replacing a system of expenses that enabled MPs to indulge
MPs face bills running into tens of thousands of pounds after a challenge issued last night by the man brought in to clean up the expenses system.
Profits made by MPs on second homes bought with the help of the taxpayer should be “surrendered”, Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) told The Times.
In his first newspaper interview Sir Ian called on the Treasury and MPs to show that they were serious by depriving MPs of some of the gains that they made on their second homes.
“This is a central question for me. Gains made in that way should not be retained. The mechanism for doing it is the only question we have to decide,” he said.
If Revenue & Customs had power to assess such gains it should start doing it. If it was not able to do so, Parliament should give it the powers before the election, Sir Ian said, promising that sitting MPs and candidates would know by the end of March the final details of their new expenses regime.
It was unclear last night how far back the repayments would go.
MPs who lose or stand down could still have to pay a bill for the gains that they had made in the previous six months.
Sir Ian said that it was for the Exchequer to manage how the gain was surrendered and it might be that Parliament would need to pass new regulations or some other legislative formula.
“The view Kelly took and we take is that that gain ought to be surrendered because it is made courtesy of the taxpayer,” he said."
