Back in 2009 Iain Franklin from the Director of Lands & Survey wrote a Memo to the Financial Secretary, Director Budget Management Unit re Stamp Duty on Residential Leases. See attachment.

Franklin was pursuing the “lack of enforcement of Stamp Duty payable on Residential leases”.

He said “a revenue stream which is already on statute lays dry (as no persons, except one law firm, present residential leases for stamping). At present, all leases are dutiable at ad valorem rates.”

Franklin recommended the repeal of the existing system, as it had never been collected, and recommended a replacement comprising a tiered fixed rate duty system.

I do not know what the reply was or if any meeting/discussion took place between the two government departments.

On March 3rd 2016 local lawyer Peter Polack asked Government Chief Officer Alan Jones via email, with copy to Deputy Governor, Franz Manderson, the following questions:

Chief Officer

Kindly confirm the following information within seven days hereof:

1. That all UK senior members of the RCIPS have fulfilled their stamp
duty obligations for the years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation and/or
unregistered leases.

2. That all foreign employees of CIG have fulfilled their stamp duty
obligations for the years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation and/or
unregistered leases.

3. Amounts collected by CIG for stamp duty under Section 20(4) for the
years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation and/or unregistered leases.

4. Section 30(1) enforcement action taken by your portfolio for stamp
duty under Section 20(4) for the years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation
and/or unregistered leases.

You are reminded of your obligations under the Public Service Management
Law.

Regards

Polack received a reply back by return saying his email had been forwarded to the Director, Lands & Survey and the Chief Valuation Officer who would respond direct to him.

However, Jones did have a ‘general comment’:
“I have to comment that it is impossible for LS (or anyone else) to be able to confirm that SD has been paid on all leases taken out by a certain group of people, since there is just no way of knowing all of the contractual leases that exist. Bear in mind that some agreements of the verbal variety.
“That is not to say that there isn’t a legal requirement on the part of the lessee to pay SD and/or register the lease (when the term is over the prescribed term). However, in practice there is no way of knowing what leases (particularly of the residential type) exist at any one point in time.”

Polack replied back saying he noted the ‘general attempt’ but asked him what steps he had “taken as chief officer since appointment to remedy the self-same problems identified in your reply including:

“3. Amounts collected by CIG for stamp duty under Section 20(4) for the
years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation and/or unregistered leases.

“4. Section 30 (1) enforcement action taken by your portfolio for stamp
duty under Section 20(4) for the years 2009-2015 for rented accommodation
and/or unregistered leases.

“I have copied this to Minister Archer who may be interested in your reply
also.”

On March 17 Polack received a reply back from Tanya Vasquez-Ebanks
Information Manager Ministry PLAHI advising him that “At this time Ministry PLAHI has decided that your request for information is best answered through the Freedom of Information process.” Vasquez-Ebanks attached “Ministry PLAHI official FOI acknowledgement letter, containing details on response timelines and includes your FOI request number.”

But there was a glimmer of hope as Vasquez-Ebanks on April 22nd wrote:

“Further to the below, please be advised that Ministry is still in the
process of researching your request and ensuring that we are not duplicating
material that has already been released to you by the other entities( Lands
and Survey Department and the Ministry of Finance). We endeavor to have our
final response to you within two weeks.

“My sincere apologies on this delay and thank you for your continued
patience.”

Then on May 18th Polack receives another reply from Vasquez-Ebanks that starts out very promising;

“Thank you for your patience whilst we researched this request. Please now
find attached, Ministry PLAHI response to your abovementioned FOI request.
We are pleased to grant you full access to the record we hold.”

So Polack is at last going to get the information he requires. Right? WRONG!

Just read this:

“Under section 33 of the Freedom of Information Law, you may ask for an
Internal Review of this response to your request, under either of the
following relevant points;
a) refusing to grant access;
b) granting partial access to the record(s) specified in your application;
c) deferring the grant of access to the document;
d) refusal to amend or annotate an official document containing personal
information;
e) charging a fee for action taken or as to the amount of the fee charged;
where the decision was taken by a person other than the responsible
Minister, Chief Officer or Principal Officer of the Public Authority.

“You have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this Notice in which
to request an Internal Review, by writing to the Chief Officer of Ministry
PLAHI at the email address [email protected] .
Please include the following information;
1) a copy of your Applicati9on and/or your reference number (FOI/71391);
2) your name and contact details;
3) a copy of this letter; and
4) if so inclined, the basis on which you are requesting a Review of the
decision indicated.

“If upon Internal Review, the decision is still not favourable to you, you
have the right under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Law to appeal
to the Information Commissioner within thirty (30) days of;
1) the date of notification of the decision taken at Internal Review;
2) a decision taken by a responsible Minister, Chief Officer or Principal
Officer of the public authority; or
3) the date on which you should have been notified of the decision referred
to above but which you received no notification.

“Contact details for the Information Commissioner is as follows:
Acting Information Commissioner – Mr. Jan Liebars, email – [email protected]
, website – www.infocomm.ky , telephone – 1 345 747 5402.

“I trust this answer has been of assistance. Once again, thank you for your
patience.”

I am sure Vasquez-Ebanks must be laughing. I am not and neither is Polack. Neither should anyone reading all this. It is disgraceful. Remember it us who pay for all this nonsense.

Stalling it is and unfortunately with the Freedom of Information and Office of Information Commissioner being amalgamated it is going to get worse. This is a very bad decision by the government and will not win them any votes.

We are all fed up with government red tape that costs all of us money.

For SEVEN years no monies have been collected for stamp duty on residential leases and Polack told me:

“The CIG is uninterested in collecting stamp duty from well-connected landlords/ tenants who are faced with stamp duty arrears, penalties and possible prosecution.

“- The stamp duty arrears collectable and due run over many years and amounts to millions of dollars that could fill gaps in our budget and improves our social services.

“- Those at the top feel the public and especially young people are ignorant to these facts.

“Why are we expecting people especially the young to comply with laws that others blatantly break without sanction?

“Perhaps this is why we have one of the highest incarceration and conviction rates in the world.”

Polack is 100% correct.

I hope you all read our front Page Story published yesterday (19) “Prison Reform 2016: Netherlands Jails May Close As Dutch Crime Rate Falls” at: http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/prison-reform-2016-netherlands-jails-may-close-as-dutch-crime-rate-falls/

Our country can learn a lot from the Netherlands. We both have something in common. We are both relatively flat.

As for stalling. The Cayman Islands Government employees are the masters.

Next week I will tell you of an incident I have had dealing with the Post Office over a misplaced postal key.