From the Land Matters blog(hat tip: Chris Jordan, ActionAid and the Tax Justice Network)
Amidst all the press coverage of the student demonstration in London on Wednesday, one small question was niggling me as I watched the windows being smashed in Millbank Tower. Whose windows? Who owns Millbank Tower?
And the answer?
A 2 minute search of the Land Registry turned up Title NumberNGL886677 together with a plan which reveals that the 21-24 Millbank and 25 and 30 Millbank are owned by Basio Holdings Ltd. of 1 Palm Chambers No. 3, PO Box 3152, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.
So the Conservative Party (who rent offices in No. 30) are paying rent to a company in the British Virgin Islands. I hope they are aware of theNon-Resident Landlords Scheme.
Well done that blogger. We think the world needs to know more about this arrangement. The FT says it belongs to the Reuben brothers, two property tycoons who made their fortune in Russian aluminium during the chaotic 1990s. Could be.
(Separately, the Land Matters blog has also published a Land Value Tax proposal for Scotland.)
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
One could of course make similar comments about HMRC, which sold its entire property portfolio to Mapeley, a company which also happens to be based in the BVI?
None of their business. The Reuben brothers have a UK letting agent whow ould be responsible for any deduction of tax.
Why do you say “We think the world needs to know more about this arrangement”? The letting of property is withing the UK charge to tax and there is no particular reason to think that the proper amount of tax is collected. The Reuben brothers live in Monaco although they have business interests all around the world, not just in Europe. I am not one of the Reuben brothers’ fans for other reaosns but there is no reason to think anything is going on here, unless this (like the Vodafone “£6 billion” is just another one of your ployes to stir up the ill-informed about supposedly dodgy tax deals,
@roger rabbit
Good point
And right
Dave Hartnett’s signature was on the deal
Why, I wonder, didn’t he notice what it meant?
@Alex
Private Eye has firmly reiterated its allegation this week
It s obviously absolutely confident of the figures
And absolutely confident they’re right
I’ve never seen a more blatant “sue or shut up” sign posted
I can only presume their source is very reliable and they are very, very confident
Confident enough for the rest of us to now believe them unless Vodafone or HMRC want to prove otherwise I think
@Richard Murphy
Private Eye make a lot of allegations that are unsubstantiated: like the one about the official briefing note post-Cadbury with regard to Vodafone2. If it exists, lets see it and decide for ourselves exactly what HMRC were saying.
Similarly, lets see their detailed calculation on the 6 billion tax – as you have said before, the amount is a red herring.
@JayPee
But private eye have now reiterated the allegation, with some clarification, and I’m inclined to believe it right.
@Alex
“there is no particular reason to think that the proper amount of tax is collected”.
Wow! You don’t half stick your neck out! So you agree that we need to know more, then!
I published the link to your interesting blog today in a comment on The Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’, underneath an article ‘Met closes down anti-police blog’. It got replaced with ‘This comment has been removed by the moderator’.
Seemed strange (it isn’t advocating violence or anything illegal) so I asked why and reposted the original again. This appeared for 15 minutes then disappeared again completely. I tried again, same thing.
Several other commentators saw what was happening and commented that it was censorship and repeated what I had written. Theirs too disappeared.
What is in your blog that the bastion of free speech, The Guardian, does not want people to know?
Something very strange going on…
@Patrick Quinn
I suspect it is libel paranoia
I can’t see why in this case
It’s quoting the land registry – nothing more
I too saw several reposts of this information on the Guardian CiF and they were all totally deleted within minutes, not even replaced with ‘The moderator removed this comment’ but totally erased. Liberal paranoia about what? super-injunction?
As the poster of the original blog referred to, I am interested in the Guardian’s reaction. Today, I logged onto the Land Registry as I want to know more about the various leases of Millbank. Using the same search terms as I used originally (which yielded information on all the leases and freeholds of the property), I was told that “sorry we do not have a record for this property” But they did a few days ago…?
@ my original post, 16th November.
At the time, I also complained by email to the editor at the Guardian.
Yesterday the Guardian’s community emailed me, saying my post was ‘mistakenly removed’, it has now been put back.
Also, my account has now been taken off premoderation.
Maybe Richard was correct, just a over-paranoid moderator?
As to Andy, it could be just the Land Registry’s web site malfunctioning. Is it still showing no record?
Patrick,
Yes, Yesterday and today 22/23 Nov still showing no records. Have emailed them to ask why.
All the details still on land registry site. Problem is with search terms – you must use exactly the right postcode and different floors have different postcodes. Leasehold interest held by company TST Millbank LLP registered in Delaware.