Re: Maria Miller - Culture Secretary : Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:47 pm
DaveO wrote:
What got me about this was she was first told to pay back £44,000 by the independent body that did the initial investigation only for this to be reduced to £5,800 by the committee of MP's who reviewed the findings because apparently her mortgage increased by £150,000 since the election so she was in fact allowed to claim the additional £38,200.
WTF did her mortgage go up by £150K after the election? She didn't move house or anything and already owned both properties as far as I am aware.
Is it standard practice on winning an election to increase your mortgage to get a cheap tax-payer subsidised loan?
Was it done because she needed the money for a legitimate reason or just because she could and it was going to be subsidised?
WTF did her mortgage go up by £150K after the election? She didn't move house or anything and already owned both properties as far as I am aware.
Is it standard practice on winning an election to increase your mortgage to get a cheap tax-payer subsidised loan?
Was it done because she needed the money for a legitimate reason or just because she could and it was going to be subsidised?
I think tbf the bulk of her mortgage was pre-election. It had gone up a lot since the house was bought, but not much since she became an MP. The original decision was she should disregard later advances and could only claim on the amount of the original purchase mortgage but that was overruled. And she didn't claim any of the extra interest relating to any advance taken out after she was elected.
But her troubles are not yet over.
For some bizarre reason (probably "because they could") MPs were allowed to designate a pad as their second home, for claiming expenses from the public trough, yet at the same time, claim it was their main home for tax purposes ("flipping").
When the expenses scandal exposed them for the unprincipled moneygrubbers many are, MPs had to be formally told that flipping was "unethical" and that they had jolly well better not. That was in 2009. MPs were asked to sign a declaration that they would pay CGT on the sale profits of second homes on which they claimed expenses.
Miller was sent 3 letters asking her to confirm that she would pay the CGT on her “second home” when it was sold. She did not sign the declaration and instead she stopped claiming expenses. She later designated the London house as her main home and from 2011 claimed expenses on a property in her Basingstoke constituency.
Earlier this year she sold the London property for £1.47million, a profit of £1.236 million. If it was now her main home after all, she would be liable for no CGT whereas if it remained a second home, and not her main home, CGT would be charged at 28%. It is true that from 2009 to 2011 she didn't claim any home expenses and since 2009 has claimed none on the London property at all.
There are reports today that Miller denies she won't pay CGT (though all I have actually seen is an unhelpful statement from "a spokesman" which just said:
The sale of the Wimbledon property in February, falls in a tax year that has not yet been assessed. She will of course deal with the matter in accordance with HMRC rules and pay any tax that is due
Well, yes, but that's not actually the point, now is it?
I am relieved that Miller and other MPs continue to hold the public accounts committee and investigators in such high esteem, and that following the expenses scandals we thankfully now have an MPs expenses system that we can all admire, and which commands public confidence.
