FANCY TAX EVASION FOOTWORK

Roseau, July 2008 – An August 2005 land transfer record of the High Court – part of the evidence in the defamation lawsuit Skerrit Versus Matt Peltier and the Times Newspaper – has been removed from the Court by a Court Order, altered with a notation of additional taxes paid and returned.

The Order dated March 31, 2008 from High Court Judge Davidson Baptiste surfaced in response to an application from Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit’s attorney Stephen Isidore. It was presented to the Court in December 2007 by the chambers of Alick Lawrence with an affidavit in support from Isidore.

It appears that Mr. Skerrit and his legal team wanted to deliver on a promise by Isidore in September 2007 to correct his “mistake” in arriving at a substantially smaller sum of land transfer taxes due on Mr. Skerrit’s acquisition of land at Wallhouse.

Judge Baptiste accepted the submissions and on May 14^th, 2008, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit paid an additional $51,071.69 in taxes on the transfer (September 01, 2005) of 2.989 acres of land at Wallhouse purchased from Leopold Emanuel in August, 2005.

When the amount of $14,028.31 paid on August 25, 2005 is added to the new payment, the grand total in taxes on that controversial land transfer transaction at 10% of value is now $65,100.00, meaning that the land in 2005 carried a market value of $651,000.00.

But when that truth was reported last August, Matt Peltier and the Times Newspaper came under left, right and centre by every available media and legal gun for hire in the region. Subsequently, Mr. Skerrit’s attorneys sued for defamation as a result of the simple statement of fact that on a salary of approximately $5,000 monthly, the sitting Prime Minister was able to secure land assets worth over one million dollars.

The reference in the August 29, 2007 article was to two parcels of land – one at Trafalgar and the other at Wallhouse – which the Times valued at 448,000 and 650,000 respectively.

Now new questions are making the rounds about this latest chapter in the Roosevelt Skerrit land tax scandal.

The Opposition United Workers Party for example is questioning the integrity of the process through which the additional taxes for Wallhouse were paid.  The UWP is also puzzled as to why there has been no similar additional payment in respect of Mr. Skerritt’s Trafalgar land transfer transaction. Transfer of title for this alleged gift of Marina Shillingford’s land purchased for $90,000 was completed with a false Memorandum of Transfer and a highly questionable land valuation in the space of 25 minutes on August 08, 2005.

At a Press Conference on July 03, 2008, Deputy Political Leader of the UWP, Ron Green outlined the party’s concerns:

“Throughout this unfolding saga of corruption, the Registrar and the Police in particular have remained deafeningly silent notwithstanding their persistent harassment of ordinary citizens for trivial offenses.

“We believe that the process through which the additional taxes were paid on the Wallhouse transfer is highly irregular, unjust and severely harmful to the credibility of the rule of law in this country.

“In a situation where Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit was caught red-handed, cheating the revenue of substantial sums of money, the High Court has allowed an unprecedented resolution crafted by Mr. Skerrit’s attorneys for the sole purpose of exonerating him from a most blatant act of misbehavior in public office”.

The UWP statement notes six points of interest in the additional land tax saga as follows:

1. “The High Court acted on an application filed by Mr. Skerrit’s attorneys supported by an unchallenged affidavit from Stephen Isidore which contains as many inconsistencies, irregularities and untruths as the false land transfer documents he prepared and presented to the Registrar on behalf of his client.

2. “There appears to be no evidence before the court that the actual land owner, Mr. Roosevelt Skerrit, has any issue whatsoever with the land transfer transactions in which the Registrar granted him title to the two properties in question in August/September 2005.

3. “There is no involvement of the Registrar by way of an appearance before the Judge or a statement to the Judge to confirm that the public office responsible for land transfer tax collection is now satisfied with the values on which the additional taxes have been calculated.

4. “There is no challenge from the Registrar, the Attorney General or any other public officer to any of the points made by Stephen Isidore to justify his highly irregular conduct as an officer of the court.

5. “The Court has issued the identical order requested by Mr. Skerrit’s attorneys having accepted the invitation to rule on its own transaction in the absence of input from the Registrar who is responsible for vetting such transactions and protecting the state’s interest in these matters.

6. “The Court made no order with respect to interest and penalties in a matter where Mr. Skerrit underpaid the state $51,071.69 and therefore had the benefit of keeping the state’s money for his personal use for almost three years”.

In the circumstances, the time has come for the judicial and law enforcement authorities to take firm action against Mr. Skerrit for the following examples of misbehaviour in Public Office:

1. Possession of Unaccounted Property in breach of section 47(1) of the Integrity in Public Office Act.
   .
2. False Declarations in the Certification of Title by Registration which present prima facie evidence of violations of Section 169 of the Title by Registration Act.
   .
3. Tax Evasion in breach of the Income Tax Act and Mr. Skerrit’s fiduciary responsibilities for collection and protection of the State’s revenue as provided for in the Finance Administration Act.
   
4. Unethical Acceptance of Gifts contrary to the Code of Conduct in the Second Schedule and section 35 of the Integrity in Public Office Act.