Surely this can't be correct.

[Grumpmeister]

I'm watching a debate on Newsnight & Mark Thomas (yes l know how some of you view him) just made a point that cant be true.

The majority of govenment buildings, including the Home Office, can't be owned by tax dodging companies based overseas can they? The govenment cant be that stupid surely.

[Mr Happy]

It can be true, but fear not they are securely funded 

By you and I 

There should be a suicide emoticon...

[Snoopy]

I'm watching a debate on Newsnight & Mark Thomas (yes l know how some of you view him) just made a point that cant be true.

The majority of govenment buildings, including the Home Office, can't be owned by tax dodging companies based overseas can they? The government cant be that stupid surely.

Oh yes they can and oh yes they did ~ The Nu Labour Government sold the majority of their real estate holdings to a company based off-shore and then signed to lease the same buildings back at an over inflated rent for at least 30 years. As if this stupidity was not bad enough they then allowed the new owners to reopened negotiations to increase the rental payments to include certain minor items like maintenance and upkeep that the new owners has "forgotten" to include in their successful (IE Cheapest) bid and ended up actually agreeing to pay a higher rental to include these basic "landlord" responsibilities. At the end of the rental 30 years (in some cases it is a longer period) the properties will become the sole property of the new owners to do with as they will. IE this "Off-shore" bunch of shysters will own a great lump of London real estate that we have paid them to take off our hands. This according to Gordon Brown as Chancellor was to enable the Government to forecast accurately their outgoings on accommodation over the next 30 years and thus save money. Many of those buildings are now redundant due to the relocation to the outer reaches of the UK of the departments that used to occupy them (in the name of adjusting the London bias and spreading the civil service jobs out to people needing work in Newcastle, Manchester, Swansea etc etc) BUT because the Government have leased them, including upkeep, maintenance and security costs for 30 years we are still paying the off shore company rent for them whilst the buildings stand empty and earn massive tax benefits for the owners.

You really didn't think the latest cock-up was their first did you? They have been practising for years to reach this level of perfection. 

[Grumpmeister]

The moment he said it part of me knew it had to be true even though the common sense side of me was screaming that nobody could be that bleedin' stupid. 

[Snoopy]

This report only covers a part of it but it is all I could find in a hurry. Note it is dated 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/sep/24/uk.economy

The Inland Revenue yesterday admitted that it sold its entire property portfolio of 600 buildings to a company based in a tax haven, despite a Treasury crackdown on tax dodges in offshore islands.

It said an announcement last year that the properties had been sold and leased back from a UK company was made in error. It confirmed the deal had been signed with a firm that was based and paid tax in Bermuda.

The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who headed the tax campaign, is likely to come under pressure to explain how Britain's main tax raising agency came to sign the deal given the government's belief that havens shield companies and wealthy individuals from paying taxes in Britain.

It shows that the Government concluded the deal to sell and lease back 600 properties owned and occupied by the then Inland Revenue in 2001 and AT THAT TIME claimed to have no idea that the company was in fact registered in Bermuda and thus paid no UK taxes. This fact only came out after questions in the "House"