Scrutiny continues to examine proposed tax law
28 January 2022
The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel questioned the Minister for Treasury and Resources at a public hearing for the Panel's review of the Minister's proposed Enveloped Property Transactions Tax, due to be debated during the States Meeting commencing 8 February. During the hearing, the Panel heard:
- The intention of the tax is to "close the gap" between the disparity in taxation of enveloped properties and non-enveloped properties.
- It has been difficult to engage with stakeholders who were consulted on the draft legislation last year, as some did not agree with the proposed tax in principle.
- The Council of Ministers was not unanimous in its decision to bring in this new tax.
- The Council of Ministers will consider the Panel's first amendment to the proposed law but currently does not support the second.
- Up to £1 million of taxes raised will be put into the Housing Development Fund. Any additional revenue, up to a further £4 million, will go into the General Reserve for expenditure across the Government.
- Revenue Jersey require more resources, however, recruiting external tax advisors is proving difficult.
- The intention is to make the process more digital, so that transactions can be completed within minutes.
The Panel has lodged two amendments ahead of the debate and, with a number of outstanding issues to examine, will continue its work which can be followed via the States Assembly website and social media.
Chair of the Panel for this review, Deputy Steve Ahier, said: "Ahead of the upcoming debate, the Panel is keen to reinstate its intention to review the proposed Enveloped Property Transactions Tax Law, as far as necessary, to determine whether it stays in keeping with the Government's mantra of keeping taxes low, broad, simple and fair. We are pleased to have gained confirmation that the proposition is subject to the scrutiny process provided for within Standing Order 72, enabling the Panel, or an Assembly Member, to refer the Draft Law for further scrutiny should this be needed."
