He did, however, win one small battle, as the Assembly agreed at least to discuss some of his proposals, having previously dismissed a long line of his amendments without debate.
Deputy Goy secured seven votes, in addition to his own, for an amendment which proposed an investigation into higher rates of document duty on purchases of the most expensive properties in the island, but it was defeated with 28 votes against.
He called for Policy & Resources to report back to the Assembly next year following a study of his suggestion of generating more duty from high-value sales in three tiers – £2.5-5m., £5-10m. and above £10m.
His suggested tiers would have increased document duty on the most expensive properties to a similar level to stamp duty in the UK.
‘The objective of this proposal is to ensure that the acquisition of premium residential property contributes proportionately to the public systems, infrastructure and socio-economic stability that underpin and safeguard property values within Guernsey,’ he said.
Opposition included fears that even a broad investigation into the issue could discourage wealthy ‘rentiers’ from moving to the island, and criticism that the amendment had been laid at the wrong time and should have been submitted during an annual Budget debate.
Deputy Goy had no more success with an amendment which proposed an investigation into higher one-off and annual charges on the most expensive and powerful vehicles purchased for use on Guernsey’s roads.
‘Together, these instruments ensure that those choosing to import or operate luxury vehicles make a fair, proportionate contribution to the island’s capital infrastructure projects. Concurrently, the framework strictly shields low-to-middle income households, essential utility transport and local motoring heritage from any additional administrative or financial burden,’ said Deputy Goy.
P&R president Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez did not disagree with the principle behind Deputy Goy’s amendment and said it was reflected in new transport taxes proposed in the senior committee’s own tax package.
Those transport taxes had been estimated as worth about £7m. a year to States revenues, but Deputy Goy said they would hit all motorists, whereas his amendment was targeted at owners of the most expensive vehicles only.
The amendment was defeated by seven votes to 31.
Deputy Goy suffered an even heavier defeat with an amendment which would have started an investigation into the concept of a minimum tax contribution from households living in properties within the top 10% of TRP values.
He claimed that public opinion was demanding that more should be done to make sure that the wealthiest residents paid a fair contribution towards the cost of running the island and that an investigation was therefore the least that should be agreed.
Deputy Neil Inder criticised ‘the green eyes of envy’ which he believed were behind the amendment, and concerns were raised about whether the kind of regime proposed by Deputy Goy could be drafted within human rights legislation.
The amendment was rejected by five votes to 32.
Deputy Goy persuaded only two other members to back another amendment, which proposed an investigation into requiring a minimum tax contribution from future purchasers of open market properties shown to have considerable wealth, with 29 voting against.
Deputy Goy then received a small spike in support for his final amendment, in which he made another attempt to raise more revenue for the States linked to the use – or in this case misuse, as he saw it – of property.
There were 10 votes for, and 26 against, his proposal to set up an investigation into additional taxes on residential properties left vacant for at least 12 months or used as holiday homes for less than half the year, and on commercial properties left vacant or not leased for more than 12 months.
He estimated that 180 residential properties at least would be caught by an underutilised property levy.
‘By introducing a deterrent financial mechanism, the levy intends to incentivise owners of idle property to return these assets to the active market, either via leasing or sale, thereby easing the island’s housing shortage or, alternatively, making a substantial financial contribution via an enhanced TRP rate should they choose to retain the property in its underutilised state,’ he said.
Steve Falla, responding to the debate for P&R, said the senior committee and its predecessors had already looked into a potential levy on vacant residential properties.
‘Significant challenges have already been identified, however, not least the level of resources which would be required to implement it,’ he said. This was one factor which had persuaded the Housing Committee to take the idea no further.
Deputy Falla also reminded members that the previous Assembly had considered and rejected an enhanced TRP tariff for unoccupied residential and commercial properties.
You need to be logged in to comment.