UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Charlie Elphicke

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the highest amount is that a single household has been capped as a result of the benefit cap.

    Esther McVey

    Of the top ten highest capped households at the end of March 2014, the average capped amount was £607 per week.

    More detailed information on the amount capped is not available as providing this information could identify individuals and would breach data confidentiality. Further information on the number of households capped by the amount capped is found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-cap-number-of-households-capped-to-january-2014

    “

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-05-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much his Department has paid to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Limited since the sale of HM Revenue and Customs’ estate to that company.

    Mr David Gauke

    Since the financial year 2006-2007, the earliest year for which records are held on HMRC accounting systems, HMRC has paid £2,364m to Mapeley STEPS Contractor Limited. This amount includes VAT and utility and other non STEPS costs. Payments to Mapeley are published in Departmental Spending Reports at data.gov.uk

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the number of properties valued at more than (a) £2 million and (b) £5 million.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-05-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps the Government is taking to tackle aggressive tax avoidance.

    Mr David Gauke

    Since 2010 the Government has introduced wide ranging reforms to tackle aggressive tax avoidance, including the General Anti-Abuse Rule in 2013 and numerous changes to tax law to close individual loopholes. Budget 2014 announced further measures to target the activities of high-risk promoters and to change the economics of avoidance through requiring taxpayers to pay disputed tax in advance up front.

    The Government is also reinvesting over £1 billion in HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over this Parliament to increase the level of compliance activity, including tackling aggressive tax avoidance. HMRC brought in £700 million in 2012-13 alone through its work to tackle marketed avoidance schemes. HMRC also litigates cases where necessary and is very successful in doing so, winning around 80% of avoidance cases taxpayers choose to take to court. Many more taxpayers settle before reaching court.

    The UK has also been taking a leading role in the work of the G20 and OECD to address base erosion and profit shifting by multinational companies. At the Budget we published a paper which sets out our priorities for the ongoing work with G20 and OECD partners, taking forward the 15 point Action Plan to counter Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). This includes proposals for new international rules to address cross-border business structures or finance transactions and enhanced disclosure rules to help tackle tax avoidance in an international context.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the average annual payment required from each property valued above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whether he has reviewed the efficacy of the guidance of the Electoral Commission on referendums; and if he will make a statement.

    Greg Clark

    The Government has not reviewed the efficacy of guidance produced by the independent Electoral Commission.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-03-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department made before the 2012 Budget of the effect on stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax receipts of the introduction of a so-called mansion tax designed to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum.

    David Gauke

    The number of residential properties in the UK valued at more than £2 million was estimated before Budget 2012 to be around 55,000.

    Before Budget 2012, an assessment of the average annual payment required from each property above £2 million in order to raise a net sum of £2 billion per annum was not made.

    On 1 July 2013, during Report stage of the Finance Bill, I referred to “a simple calculation arrived at by dividing £2 billion by 55,000 (an internal HMRC estimate of the number of properties valued at over £2 million) to give a ‘mean’ average of £36,000.”

    A so-called mansion tax would depress stamp duty land tax and inheritance tax yields. The exact impact would be dependent on the rates and bands chosen.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will assess the merits of introducing tax-rate floors to contracts involving Private Finance Initiative arrangements.

    Danny Alexander

    In December 2012, the Government launched Private Finance 2 (PF2). PF2 introduces significant reforms to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and gives a new approach to the delivery of public infrastructure. It is based on the outcomes of a wide call for evidence held across both the public and private sectors.

    The Government seeks to ensure that the UK tax system is competitive for all companies and that the UK is an attractive place to do business, while retaining proportionate anti-avoidance protection.

    A special purpose vehicle set up for the purposes of delivering a PFI project is no different from any other corporate entity and is therefore required to pay corporation tax in accordance with government rules.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-04-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment HM Revenue and Customs has made of the economic viability of its Customs House landholding adjacent to Dover Priory railway station.

    Mr David Gauke

    HMRC has made no assessment of the economic viability of the Priory Court Dover landholding adjacent to Dover Priory railway station.

  • Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Charlie Elphicke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Charlie Elphicke on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to promote discussions between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Network Rail on the construction of new parking facilities for Dover Priory Railway Station on land currently owned by HMRC.

    Mr David Gauke

    Previous replies have explained that HMRC does not own the Priory Court Site but occupies it as part of the STEPS PFI agreement with Mapeley. However, HMRC have taken part in discussions between Mapeley and Network Rail at the Priory Court Dover site on proposals for the construction of a multi storey car park on land adjacent to Priory Court not owned by either Mapeley or HMRC. Further discussions of future proposals have been between Mapeley as the freehold owner of Priory Court and Network Rail.