So much has been said in the press recently about MPs expenses and flipping homes. Now that the fuss has, to some extent, died down it is perhaps time for a few observations (with a tax bias) on what has been going on.

• Anyone who has to work at a number of different locations can, in principle, be re-imbursed for the additional cost necessarily incurred by him or her in performing the duties of that employment including subsistence and accommodation without any tax liability arising . So far so good.
• Anyone who has two homes can, as a matter of tax law, elect which of these homes is to be exempt from capital gains tax for any particular period.
• An employee cannot, under any circumstances, have his employer pay for the cost of completing his income tax return without a taxable benefit in kind arising.

MPs expenses are, we are told, to cover costs incurred to enable them to do their job, but surely as with the tax rules this should be the extra cost over and above what they would incur in any event.

It seems to me, therefore, that the best way to deal with the debacle about MPs expenses is to have the expenses claims all made available to the tax office that deals with all MPs and to let HMRC judge whether the expenses have been incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of their duties as MPs, using the same yardstick that HMRC apply to the general body of taxpayers.

If the expenses pass the test, then no problem. If not, MPs can either re-imburse the excess or pay tax and NIC on it.

MPs may bleat that their expenses have been approved by the Fee Office but they are still, as far as I am aware, subject to the same tax rules as the rest of us. There is no problem with security or confidentiality or with independence.

On the topic of CGT on their houses, I have to side with the MPs. They are only doing what any other taxpayer can do unless, of course, the second property is used exclusively for business purposes.

If a property or any part of it is used exclusively for business purposes then the CGT exemption doesn't apply to it/that part of it. If all of the costs of running their second property are being claimed by an MP that implies that the property is only used by them for carrying out their Parliamentary duties and is used only for business. So no exemption and one again for the tax man to sort out.

Strenuous efforts have been made over the years to persuade government to give tax relief for the cost of completing income tax returns. So far the pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Reports of MPs claiming the cost of preparing their tax returns and even taking tax advice as part of their Parliamentary expenses must be one for the tax man. If the rules allow that cost to be claimed then that is fine as long as they pay tax on the benefit like the rest of us would have to do.

It was originally set up by the then DTI in 2005. Nearly four years and £16 million later, the DTI has had two name changes (BERR and now BIS), and the long-awaited MG Rover has - at last - been completed.

Local MP Richard Burden who was told that the report has been completed, has quite rightly noted that "like everybody else in the area I have found it incredibly frustrating that we have had to wait so long for this report... so I now hope that the contents of the inquiry will be made available as soon as possible.

"'The escalating cost of the inquiry has also been a matter of real concern to so many people, including me. Hopefully the contents of the report will provide some answers to why it has cost so much and I certainly welcome the government's commitment to try to minimise the cost of any similar inquiries in the future. But the important thing now is to know what the report contains and I hope the government will be able to make a statement on that as soon as possible."

In an answer to a private question by Richard Burden, the business minister Ian Lucas said that in the future the government would carefully consider any similar exercises so as to "minimise" costs.

As Jonathan Walker pointed out in his News blog yesterday, there could be a delay before the report is published as its findings will determine whether any further action is needed. If action is needed, then publication of the report might be considered prejudicial to that action.

Things are further complicated by the fact - as the Birmingham Mail notes today - that the Phoenix Four have said no money pledged to ex-workers from the MG Rover Trust Fund will be paid until the inquiry report is published. The Mail believes that around £16m piled up from the sale of dealerships and the Studley Castle conference centre is stuck in a bank account, delaying potential pay-outs to former employees.

Tata Motors, India's largest vehicle manufacturer and the firm that bought Jaguar Land Rover some 18 months ago, released its latest financial figures today. Its sister company Tata Steel (whose UK operation Corus announced 2000 job losses yesterday) has just reported a 60% fall in profits to just under £600 million.

Not surprisingly, given the dire state of the auto industry worldwide, there is plenty of red ink; indeed Tata Motors reported its first annual loss in eight years, a loss of 25.05 billion rupees ($520 million) against a profit of 21.68 billion rupees last year.

JLR itself recorded a net loss of £281 million ($463 million) in the 10 months of the 2009 fiscal year that it has been on Tata's books. That comes after a £327 million operating profit in 2007 and £310 million operating profit in the first half of 2008. Since then conditions have deteriorated and the firm has cut nearly 2000 jobs and brought in special sabbaticals on 80% pay for over 300 hundred staff.

As reported in today's Post (see here), there is renewed hope that LDV could yet be rescued, with a number of "very credible parties" bidding for LDV.

Names in the frame apparently include Malaysian group Westar, Indian group Mahindra and Mahindra, and Chinese car firm Nanjing, which bought Mg Rover's assets before itself being taken over by Shanghai Automotive. Other bidders may yet join the fray. The administrators have stated that there could "be some clarity around this within the next two to three weeks."

Not all bidders would aim to keep production in the UK. Whilst Westar have previously stated that they would aim to retain some production in Birmingham, other bidders may well look for a 'lift and shift' of assets and production out to India or the Far East.

New figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) show that the number of cars assembled in the UK last month fell by 43% year-on-year. Dreadful as these figures sound, these are actually the best figures so far this year, and may suggest that the worst downturn ever seen in the car industry in the UK has bottomed out. We're NOT talking recovery, of course...

The same cannot be said for the commercial vehicle sector; here production fell by a disastrous 73.5%, with firms lacking the credit and confidence to buy vehicles.

Ever since demand fell off a cliff last autumn when the financial system imploded, car producers have rapidly scaled back output as stocks piled up. Part-time working, lay-offs and lengthy plant shut-downs have been the norm in the industry. With assembly plants shut down or on reduced shifts, the knock-on effect has been felt down the supply chain; the number of jobs lost in the industry runs to 30,000+ even excluding the LDV workers.

When the banking crisis entered a new and decisive phase last Autumn and the government bailed out Britain's bust banking system (unlike manufacturing by the way), many of us pointed to the strength of the traditional building society sector both in terms of its mutuality and its aversion to some of the worst excesses of global financial system.

Since then it has become clear that we were only partially correct. The 'traditional' mutual model has indeed held up quite well and the building society sector on the whole has not needed a vast state rescue as has the banking system (partly because mutual societies tend to look after their own).

However, it is now evident that some societies had got into much more risky business activity than many - including myself - had previously realised. The 160 year old West Brom, which has been rescued his week, is another example, after Cheshire and Dunfermline, having racked up losses of almost £50 million last year. The Society has assets of around £10billion, 850 staff, 350,000 customers and 46 branches - mainly here in the Midlands.

When the banking crisis entered a new and decisive phase last Autumn and the government bailed out Britain's bust banking system (unlike manufacturing by the way), many of us pointed to the strength of the traditional building society sector both in terms of its mutuality and its aversion to some of the worst excesses of global financial system.

Since then it has become clear that we were only partially correct. The 'traditional' mutual model has indeed held up quite well and the building society sector on the whole has not needed a vast state rescue as has the banking system (partly because mutual societies tend to look after their own).

However, it is now evident that some societies had got into much more risky business activity than many - including myself - had previously realised. The 160 year old West Brom, which has been rescued his week, is another example, after Cheshire and Dunfermline, having racked up losses of almost £50 million last year. The Society has assets of around £10billion, 850 staff, 350,000 customers and 46 branches - mainly here in the Midlands

The US firm GM (recently renamed 'Government Motors' by some) is closing in on a deal to off load Saab, having already got shot of Hummer and Saturn, as it races to complete a restructuring whilst under Chapter 11 protection.

Swedish broadcaster SVT has reported that the Swedish luxury super car firm Koenigsegg was planning to buy Saab along with Norwegian investors.

Saab entered 'creditor protection' (a Swedish version of Chapter 11) back in February as GM sought to sell off the loss making brand, and the Swedish firm is trying to cut debts by 75% during this process. Saab confirmed last month that three bidders were interested in Saab and that they expected to complete the sale by the end of June.

Comments earlier this week by Tom Purves (see here), the boss of the luxury car firm Rolls-Royce, were interesting on a number of fronts...

Despite the global economic downturn, RR has received 1,500 'serious expressions of interest' in the new Ghost model which is set to be unveiled in September and launched next year. The Ghost model has generated much interest after a prototype has toured the globe. If these expressions of interest were translated into sales they could effectively double RR's annual sales.

It seems that firms - luxury brands included - can (and must) innovate and develop new products for new markets (witness the splendid Jaguar XF as well). In this sense, the new Ghost is critical for RR in extending its product range and moving into new markets. The model will especially aim at a lower price category and hence potential customers who would potentially go for a Bentley Continental Flying Spur instead.

The model could also appeal to the growing numbers of rich people in emerging markets such as Russia and China, even if 'mature' western markets move away from ostentatious displays of wealth, as some seem to suggest will happen post credit-crunch.

Whilst the UK has seen its production of heavy end commercial vehicles run down in recent years, light commercial vehicles are still made in the UK in significant numbers.

Yet that could well change over the next three years unless the UK government steps in, as the seismic changes that have unfolded in the world's auto markets threaten to wipe out mass van production in the UK, leaving only very small niche producers.

At the moment there are three main producers - Ford at Southampton, GM/Renault's joint venture at Luton, and LDV here in Birmingham. The latter has been in suspended animation since December when production was largely stopped as the double whammy of credit crunch and recession impacted.

If current trends continue, all three could effectively have gone by 2012, with all main van demand then having to be met by imports, and with jobs and capacity lost forever.

The key question for the UK government is: does it want a van industry in the UK? If so, it needs to step in with an industrial policy that can make that happen. LDV is a good place to start.