Prime Minister Freundel Stuart has called on Barbados Labour Party (BLP) Leader, Mia Mottley, to explain a tax waiver totalling millions of dollars, which was approved under the previous BLP administration.
He was referring to the merger of Barclays Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) in 2002.
“Back then, the Corporate Affairs Registry received communication that these two banks were going to be merged and they wanted to apply for a change of name. They were informed that it was not only an issue of change of name, but when enquiry was made it was revealed that Barclays was going to be selling its shares to CIBC, and therefore was required to pay Property Transfer Tax and Stamp Duty.
“There was a lot dilly-dallying, to-ing and fro-ing over this issue of payment of Property Transfer Tax and Stamp Duty. And the people at the Corporate Registry made their position very clear that it had to be paid…” he told supporters at the DLP meeting held at Carlisle car park on Sunday night.
The Prime Minister revealed that a waiver of Property Transfer Tax and Stamp Duty was given, amounting to just over $87 million. He also made it clear that he does not know who granted the waiver.
“I know that my most diligent enquiries have revealed that the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was not here, so he could not have exercised any responsibility or power or discretion under section 86 of the Financial Institutions Act... But, the Treasury of Barbados had you forgo the sum of just upwards of $87 million as a result of that waiver.”
Moreover, Stuart called on the BLP Leader to also come clean about a tax write-off. He disclosed to supporters that in 1995 her father, Elliott Deighton Mottley, had two judgements lodged against him for monies owed to the Income Tax Department.
“Again, my most diligent enquiries revealed that this matter had been raised with Owen Arthur and I am going to challenge him to come out and verify what I am saying,” he stressed.
“My most diligent enquiries revealed that this had been raised with him and he said under no condition could that write-off been given... So I want the question answered, ‘Who was it really that brought about that substantial tax write-off?’” (TL)