MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
It's another mis-step. End of Story.
No one really cares if she's did it correctly. What we care about is government staffers enjoying the benefits of the rentier economy that is ****ing stuff up for everyone else
It's the same defense when the Labour lot had their hands in the honey pot near the beginning. This won't age well with an already busted government.
They really cannot go quick enough this disgraceful bunch of chancers.
Rayner has been a massive let down. This just seals it. She's had bad as the rest.
Taking legal advice that a tax avoidance loophole only available to the wealthy is legal, still isn't a good look.
This is the labour party, they should be closing these loopholes when they discover them not rubbing their hands and taking advantage.
It is just another example of how distant they are from the financial struggles that are being suffered by many, a younger generation where home ownership is becoming a much harder dream.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
The 'average working person' doesn't have the benefit of complex financial legal advice on trusts, 2nd and 3rd home ownership rules and regs - and then the housing minister still mucks it up.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
Exactly.
Red team good blue team bad.
The 'average working person' doesn't have the benefit of complex financial legal advice on trusts, 2nd and 3rd home ownership rules and regs - and then the housing minister still mucks it up.
And to then say 'I'll just pay the tax due' makes a mockery of things even further - to have a spare £40k available further laughs in peoples faces.
I'm sure a prominent Tory or Reform MP would be given a similarly fair hearing here.
Did you see the politics threads before the election - we wanted and expected better from Labour.
Stamp duty, especially when trusts are involved, can be a complex area of law, so unless you are an estates planning solicitor I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt here... you kind of have to trust what your solicitor says.
When I bought my current house my conveyance solicitor said I had X to pay, then they retired during the process and their coleague took over the job... they figured out they got it wrong and there was quite a bit less for me to pay... and that's without the complications of a trust involved.
I am about to pay around £10 000 capital gains tax on my second house sale. could I do some arcane trickery to avoid this? Yes. I even know how. will I? No because its morally wrong
Stamp duty, especially when trusts are involved, can be a complex area of law, so unless you are an estates planning solicitor I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt here.
The trust exists to deliberately complicate the tax for avoidance purposes, it doesn't make it better it is the core problem.
All these tax loopholes used and abused by the rich, who have far more disposable income than those on minimum wage, it's no wonder this country has declined so much in recent decades.
There is no loophole - that's the whole point. Either she failed to declare the existence of the trust, or else she has been given incorrect advice about how much stamp duty to pay. If her previous home had been completely sold to the trust, then the layman's assumption would be that they did not own a second home and therefore would only pay the lower rate of stamp duty. Clearly that is not the case. It seems like an honest mistake to me (and I sure as hell don't like her!) but that's assuming that everything she has said in her statement is true, and she didn't knowingly fail to declare the arrangements with the other property.
It's like Starmer's suits and glasses paid for by a donor. It's not illegal, it's not immoral, but the optics are terrible. Albeit not as terrible as being the Housing Secretary and sticking your house in a trust to avoid inheritance tax.
Oh for gods sake its not a complicated issue. It’s beginner info every accountant knows. You can't put something in trust then continue to live there and declare it your main residence for everything except tax. Its like trying to avoid IHT by your parents transferring their house into your name and then still living there without paying market rent - this is fisher price my first lawyer stuff - in fact anyone with common sense can see it may create a problem. For a govt minister its simply inconceivable that she could be allowed to get this wrong.
If a Tory minister had been shown to be doing the same thing, they would have been flamed on here. TBH, they probably were, but their even more ridiculous antics were the ones making the news.
But, whatever, all I can see now is a political lightweight in charge pandering to the far right and a vague hope (on their part) that "we're probably still a bit less corrupt than the previous lot" will wash. It doesn't.
What a wasted opportunity to do some ****ing good for this country. Hardly anyone paid any attention to the manifestos, most people just wanted the Tories out. It was a blank slate for someone with balls.
It's not illegal, it's not immoral
It is illegal, they thought the could use the trust to "avoid" tax, but they were wrong and it was actually tax "evasion" and it is definitely immoral. Unfortunately the illegality is something those with wealth often get away with because of the poor policing of financial crime, the pay it back with a small slap on the wrist if they get caught makes it worthwhile the 99% of the time they don't get caught. Maybe making a false statement for tax should be an imprisonable offence, that would sharpen the minds of the evaders and the advisors alike.
Rayner has been a massive let down. This just seals it. She's had bad as the rest.
Agreed. Just pay whats due and stop trying to avoid tax! This is exactly what she in particular enjoyed flaming Tories for when she was in opposition. As soon as she got near the trough, in went the snout. I expected so much better from her.
It's not illegal, it's not immoral,
The Seven Principles of Public Life
The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.
1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
1.4 Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
👀
What a wasted opportunity to do some ****ing good for this country. Hardly anyone paid any attention to the manifestos, most people just wanted the Tories out. It was a blank slate for someone with balls.
This is the point I was trying to make a while back about 'strong leadership' that I failed to articulate because I was tired.
When I said strong I really meant a strong moral compass, with the moral courage to do the right thing. Selfless, rather than self-serving.
I can't help but feel utterly dejected by the state of our political class. They're glorified middle managers out for themselves and **** everyone else. Not an actual leader amongst them.
Rayner.
Well, I do have sympathy in general for Rayner with the obvious targeting of her because she dared to be vaping in a blow up kayak off the British coast etc. She's been subject to some pretty horrible misogynistic attacks over the years from the right wing press that patently despise her.
Now, incorrect legal advice or not, given her position in the party and her housing mandate this is not acceptable behaviour. She knows her financial dealings will be picked over forensically by the right wing press and she has to be "whiter than white" in her dealings.
She and Labour should be better than this and this is hugely damaging and further distracts from what Labour should be focusing upon.
All the above being said, I am still a labour supporter to be clear.
For many of Labours core voters it will just further demonstrate how Labour are out of tune with themselves.
This whole episode puts a big light on the fact Rayner has 3 houses (regardless the one in London isnt technically hers) when lots working class won`t be able to afford to buy 1 house.
And that despite being privileged enough to own 3 homes, she is still greedy enough to conveniently avoid paying £40k which she puts down as a mistake by her financial adviser - which is just plain silly. Since when did a person in her position use such a shonky incompetent financial adviser .. again, its convenient she underpaid £40k and not over paid eh.
But for me; where she really scrapes the bottom is using her disabled son as another reason for avoiding to pay tax owed. At a time when labour are looking at taking benefits off the disabled in the UK, she is happy to use that card herself.
Its just so depressing. We have an orange skin scumbag in the USA taking everyone as mugs - and we have an orange haired scumbag doing the same in the UK.
Its just making things more and more easier for Reform to get in - God help us!!
She and Labour should be better than this and this is hugely damaging and further distracts from what Labour should be focusing upon.
I disagree insofar as anyone in that house should be better than this, irrespective of their political ideology.
Is it the Nolan principles and ministerial code aren't robust enough? Or are people so siloed in their expectations that they are applying value judgements unequally?
privileged enough to own 3 homes
There’s a lot of, er, “inflation of facts” going around today.
She has a state provided house in London, she has a house in trust that she lives in part time, she has a house she has bought.
She and Labour should be better than this and this is hugely damaging and further distracts from what Labour should be focusing upon.
I disagree insofar as anyone in that house should be better than this, irrespective of their political ideology.
Is it the Nolan principles and ministerial code aren't robust enough? Or are people so siloed in their expectations that they are applying value judgements unequally?
I think its that we expect the tories to be corrupt but not labour or lib dems thus when its proven labour are corrupt its more disappointing
I think its that we expect the tories to be corrupt but not labour or lib dems thus when its proven labour are corrupt its more disappointing
I get that, but does 'expecting' it, enable or give tacit permission for it?
It's the concept of normalisation of deviance.
Not in my book but I see your point. Less outrage when the tories do it?
On leadership - I knew Starmer was not a leader but a manager. However I expected him to be a competent manager / technocrat. Stuff like appointing the timpsons guy to prison reform was a superb technocrat move but otherwise its been dilberts pointy haired boss
For me it’s the hypocrisy of Starmer telling us all a year ago about being of service and after the early clothes and gifts stuff we now have this, abusing the language of the rules to try and avoid tax. The political class of all shades simply isn’t fit for purpose.
I still don’t buy the equivalence of this with what the Tories did. And she’s the last minister I want to resign.
Immorality-fatigue?
I think its also that politicians have learned if you brazen it out then its probably works out ok. So the public see dubious activity but whereas in the past it would be a resignation and, at the minimum, a couple of years on the backbenches serving penance now its, at maximum, a few weeks on the backbenchers and back on track.
That said for Rayner there will be some interesting internal political dynamics going on. Given Starmers failed attempt to demote her I cant see him being really upset if she does go and some of the other potential heirs will be delighted, especially the mayors who might be a tad suspicious about the in progress bill from her department which stops them being an mp and mayor at the same time.
I still don’t buy the equivalence of this with what the Tories did. And she’s the last minister I want to resign.
For a first year it's shocking.
The Tories had 14 years to mess their beds.
I still don’t buy the equivalence of this with what the Tories did. And she’s the last minister I want to resign.
Thats twice now she has been caught out trying to avoid tax on properties. The first time she got away with it. Both times she owned more than one property and claimed the one she did not live i9nb was actually her main residence.
Its disgraceful and she damn well should resign.
What do you mean “got away with it”? Found to have done nothing wrong? I understand why people are out to get her, but none of this looks like a genuine resigning matter. She may have to go anyway of course, as the noise and innuendo grows to be far greater than her actual “crimes”.
Got away with it the first time because she managed to persuade the taxman that the house she sold was her main residence despite the fact that for all other purposes the other house is her main residence
I am astonished you cannot see how venal and corrupt she is. It stinks to high heaven
But she does have the example of Cooper to follow who was one of the worst offenders in the housing expenses scandal With both her and Balls buying houses on expenses and flipping which one was the main residence multiple times to make the most off the expenses.
these folk are extremely well paid and yet will sell their souls for a bit more money
these folk are extremely well paid and yet will sell their souls for a bit more money
Money AND power Teej, I think Balls & Cooper’s souls are long gone.
Balls is a political embarrassment and a dreadful TV host to boot too. Talking about embarrassments -Jonathan Ashworth is doing the rounds again.
Labour doing everything they can to appear worse than 'all the same.'
these folk are extremely well paid and yet will sell their souls for a bit more money
Yep. Many can't see this. Many Labour MPs are part of the rentier class that is killing the country.
Pretty much hand in the bowl straight away.
We honestly do deserve a Reform government as punishment for letting Labour shift to the right and slapping them on the back in the process of getting rid of the left
Centrism is dead as any sort of solution to our problems. Which is why the MPs are just awful. They don't believe in anything other than themselves otherwise we'd be discussing how successful they've been.
It just gets worse and worse the minute we take breath. God help the nightmare budget that is coming. Bank on that being an absolute mess.
And she’s the last minister I want to resign.
I agree, I think Starmer needs her in place.
They need to produce a positive outcome here. How about an acknowledgement that our tax system is massively over complicated and open to abuse, intentionally or otherwise. Announce an immediate review with clear targets and a planned date for changes to kick in. Won't happen of course, too many wealthy people with too much to lose.
Good point. I have an unpaid role as a director of a Community Benefit Society and am held to higher standards with more severe consequences than politicians
Rayner needs to go just like the rest of the Labour shysters. She has sat next to Starmer and gone along with his bullshit and completely thrown away what she was (or what she maybe pretended to be?).
She should have resigned from the start in protest against what Starmer's government were up to and the fact she didn't proves she is a fake
After the budget Labour may well be polling behind Lib Dems and the tories, especially if "Your Party" pull their finger out and appear in polls
Thats twice now she has been caught out trying to avoid tax on properties.
I'm married to a Phd, and degree educated myself, know what I'm not? An expert in ****ing stamp duty...And I'll bet Rayner isn't either. We all take advice from and rely on experts... I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as the political exposure for this - as this thread and a scan of today's headlines attests for a working class woman of the left who's dared to rise to the top of politics, the mob just off-stage willing to go for the jugular at the slightest provocation, seems hardly worth the risk.
She may well have tried to pull a fast one, and we'll know, How? because (unlike Boris' flat refurbishment) she's referred herself - ie the system working as it should. Until then accusations of venality and corruption are misplaced. But by all means jump to conclusions - Badenoch will be content to have you by her side.
Yep, she may have got bad advice as it doesn't look like a typical move as it could be second home, complications around the first being in trust with her name on it etc,. so we can't really comment until a review has been performed over what exactly she was told and if she was incorrectly advised who advised her.
What we do know though is that MPs are much more into primary/second home game than the vast majority of people so should be treading very carefully,
First time around I felt Rayner had done nothing wrong and nothing that any ordinary person wouldn't do. She'd met and married someone then sold her house to move in with them.
This time, it seems she's learnt and sought advice but still not acted correctly. Poor advice, or intent to deceive I don't think we will ever know.
Unfortunately I find my trust in her eroding swiftly. That could say more about me than her, but it's where we are.
I'm married to a Phd, and degree educated myself, know what I'm not? An expert in ****ing stamp duty.
You arent a minister with some responsibility for housing though?
How? because (unlike Boris' flat refurbishment) she's referred herself
At the risk of pointing out the obvious someone referring themselves doesnt prove anything one way or another. It could be they realised they made a mistake and have referred themselves or it could be they got a phone call from a journalist saying they are running the story tomorrow and so referred themselves since they saw the PR gains.
But by all means jump to conclusions - Badenoch will be content to have you by her side.
Good to see the accusations of about being a closet tory being brought out again. I would suggest that the people most happy for the knife to go in are various Labour peeps including Starmer unless they have somehow come to an agreement after his bungled attempt to limit her a while back. Then you have Burnham and Khan both of whom might be holding a bit of a grudge/doing some counter planning after the bill being put forward stopping them from easily switching to be an MP.
I'm married to a Phd, and degree educated myself, know what I'm not? An expert in ****ing stamp duty.
When you sign off your accounts or SA to HMRC you don't get that option.
Ultimately I wanted Rayner to be so much better than all of this. But there you go.
Looks like the gov website spells it out quite plainly. Oops.
Trusts
If the beneficiary is under 18, the child’s parents are treated as the buyers (even if they are not the trustees) unless the child is covered by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.
The trust wasn't buying the Hove flat though. In general, an attempt to read through that page on SDLT shows why you need the advice of an expert. Not something I'd have confidence in navigating. The cock up (or venal act if you're so inclined) seems to be that she was still "resident" in the house the family use, even though she'd sold her share so no longer owned any part of it, so the new flat shouldn't be considered her "main" home. There's no way I could get that understanding from that gov.uk page (if that is the situation).
Ultimately I wanted Rayner to be so much better than all of this.
All this what? what are you complaining about exactly? The nub of the story here is "Woman with complex tax arrangements is badly advised, political opponents seek to capitalise" There's even a headline in todays Telegraph (of all places) that says "I'm a tax expert, and even I don't know about the rules Rayner broke" . So what's your complaint about her? That she has complex tax arrangements? That she's buying a place in Hove? That because she's a Labour politician she can't take advantage of the salary she's earning? That she should live in a council flat and wear a sour expression?
That she should live in a council flat and wear a sour expression?
She can't do that binners would be taking the piss about how scruffy she is just like he did with Corbyn.
She needs to go quite frankly, even if she's done nowt wrong. It's all about the optics, and they are of a labour deputy PM in charge of housing who owns multiple properties and appears to be avoiding tax on them whilst at the same time Labour are planning on penalising landlords and property owners. We all know how that looks, it's more 'they're all the same with their noses in the trough', and it's more fuel on the fire benefitting Farage.
She needs to go quite frankly, even if she's done nowt wrong. It's all about the optics, and they are of a labour deputy PM in charge of housing
I suspect you're right Dazh. Starmer needs to drag his heals and not look keen to get rid of her though, for party reasons. I'll be sorry to see her go (if she does).
I think you’ll find @dazh that Angela Raynor actually owns one property?
There’s some double standards on here again too. Lots of STW members who have used the cycle to work scheme with no intention of ever cycling to work, that’s deliberate tax avoidance!
So what's your complaint about her?
that she has deliberately manipulated house buying and selling to evade tax and been caught out doing so
I think you’ll find @dazh that Angela Raynor actually owns one property?
There’s some double standards on here again too. Lots of STW members who have used the cycle to work scheme with no intention of ever cycling to work, that’s deliberate tax avoidance!
National Insurance avoidance shirley? For both the employee AND (you could argue even more cynically) the employer.
Optics
Optics now AND optics later. What if Reeves wants to do something re stamp duty changes in the autumn budget? You can hear the braying now and the man in the street muttering "I'm going to try to evade that like she ****ing did".
Lots of STW members who have used the cycle to work scheme with no intention of ever cycling to work, that’s deliberate tax avoidance
They should also resign from government too.
Labour had to be whiter than white - and failed at every hurdle.
In fact they look sloppy as hell even for technocrats. The whole 'grown-ups' thing has worn as thin as possible.
Their single biggest mistake is absolutely ridiculous fiscal rules. It has killed the government, killed the public's support and it's defined a generation of failure.
Who comes into government - and takes the worst part of Tory doctrine and uses it as a template? (Reeves should have really understood that something invented by George Osborne was literal economic shit.)
It's mechanically stupid and ****ed all their growth wishes up.
It's almost as of the Tories and press set a trap to not improve the country. The place will be even worse in 2026.
There is no getting better in the current scenario.
Ive got no preference for Angela Rayner, and there absoloutly no chance i'll be voting labour in the near future, due to some awful/offensive policies, but this is yet another witch hunt.
*As i understand it*
The Newcastle home is in trust, along with a payout granted to her child due to his disability (which was caused by negligence somewhere else). The money and home are protected by the trust to ensure her kid always has somewhere to live. Her Ex and she take it in turns at the house, with the kid who gets to stay in their home. Many people cant afford that, but a good setup, if you can.
The grace and favour house isnt "her" house. Its somewhere to live while shes at work in london. TBF i think that whole system is stupid and they should build a block of apartments (like the barbican) where each MPs seat has a designated apartment. what are they doing with the olympic village these days?
The Brighton house, is her house. Why she is MP of a constituency 250 miles from her home is another stupid situation. MPs should HAVE to be MPs where they live.
Shes made some "efficient" declerations, for instance claiming one primary residence for council tax reasons, and another for childcare reason, but ultimatley a loophole not illegal.
Grinds my gears when they whine about these loopholes. Lets see ALL the MPs loopholes on the table please. i wonder how many MPs have offshore held property, shell companies, LLCs etc.
I dont agree with it, but dont whine about it when youre all at it.
Comrade Corbyn made some interesting comments yesterday, about how the labour party is very top down, and at the top they are more concerned with the power struggle than actually doing any work. Which is probably how she got stuck in this mess. Plonker. Why can they just get it right while theyre subject to publi scrutiny. It cannot be that hard.
that she has deliberately manipulated house buying and selling to evade tax and been caught out doing so
By my count Angela Raynor now has a "property portfolio" that's the same as well, yours. Two things. Thing One You've never disguised your dislike for Angela Raynor, I'll put you in the box along with all the politicians capitalising on it. Thing Two, I find it difficult to swallow, given her previous experience selling houses, that she'd try to game the system.
Only I am selling mine - and am intending to pay the tax even tho I could game the system to avoid it
Its obvious she set up the various deals to avoid tax if you read the reports and her statement
Comrade Corbyn made some interesting comments yesterday, about how the labour party is very top down, and at the top they are more concerned with the power struggle than actually doing any work. Which is probably how she got stuck in this mess. Plonker.
Please draw a line from internal power struggle obsessions to trusts, property portfolios and tax efficient schemes.
You were doing quite well up to that point.
Its obvious she set up the various deals to avoid tax if you read the reports and her statement
It's not 'obvious' at all. Her Manchester house is owned by a trust, so's my mother's house. There are pretty easy to undertand reasons why folks do it, and it's perfectly legal. I'll bet something approaching the following was the conversation
conveyancing lawyer "Do you own any other properties?"
AR "I do, as a trustee"
Con lawyer: "Do you have an interest in the trust?"
AR: turning to Trust's lawyer "Do I?"
Trusts Lawyer : "No, you're just a beneficiary"
The conveyancing lawyer has over simplified the query and the trust's lawyer has answered the literal question as opposed to answering the question AR should've asked. Should we expect a normal person to seek out further advice from Tax/Stamp duty expertise once they've had a conversation with two lawyers? Probs not, but if you're the DPM who's been stung on property before, in hindsight she probably should've. At the very least it would've headed off the obvious trolling of folks who get thier knickers in a twist about successful single mums owing (count them) two! houses...
Comrade Corbyn made some interesting comments yesterday, about how the labour party is very top down
Given the comical/Kafkaesque levels of central control exerted by Seamus Milne and Karie Murphy after the 2017 election defeat, he should probs keep schtum about "top down" control.
I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that Nickc 🙂
I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that Nickc 🙂
"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds"
Raynor's excuse is very hard to believe. I looked into doing exactly the same to avoid higher rate stamp duty, and arrived at the right answer after a short time on Google. I'm sure STW could have given me the right answer too.
I don't believe that a housing minister with daily access to the Chancellor can't find correct tax advice on a simple house transaction.
The conveyancing solicitor says that it did not offer tax advice: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/04/angela-rayner-used-family-conveyancing-firm-to-buy-tax-row-flat
The conveyancing solicitor says that it did not offer tax advice
“I confirm my firm does not deal with trusts or offer tax advice. The stamp duty land tax was calculated using the HMRC calculator and was strictly based on the facts and information provided to us.”
She added: “We believe we did everything correctly and in good faith.”
That sounds pretty much like what I'd expect - convayance solicitors are not typically estate planning specialists.
So I supose the questions are now -
- Did she 'DIY' the trust? sounds really stupid if she did.
- Did she instruct a specialist solicitor to set up the trust, and what was thier advice?
The conveyance solicitors opinion is a bit of a red herring if you ask me - it's really not thier job, or area of expertise beyond basic fraud/laundering checks when purchasing property.
EDIT:
she is understood to have consulted two experts on trust law before completing the purchase.
These are the people that need to answer whether they gave bad advice, or if they gave good advice and she ignored it.
Yes, you have to feel sorry for the small family run solicitors that she is trying to throw under the bus. Being blamed for this potentially puts them out of business .. after all, if it's their fault who would use them if they are so incompetent?
It's understandable for your average person to make such a mistake regarding such a complicated situation - but then again average people don't arrange such complicated situations; it's for those people a little more than savvy who are looking at the finer details where potential savings can be made .. someone leading any local government department of housing or the deputy leader of government you'd expect to be diligent to have all the details for sure. And if not - surely that in itself shows how incompetent she is to be in such an important role.
When I have a tax query I just phone up the HMRC who have always been very helpful and know their subject. I am sure they would have given the answer or good guidance if called.
I tested the issue with my wife who is a chartered tax advisor and teaches accountancy. Her view is that this is basic knowledge any qualified tax accountant would have.
Rayner’s allies say she did not initially realise the tax implications of her son’s trust, even though she is understood to have consulted two experts on trust law before completing the purchase.
Drip drip drip of info. This is the critical bit - she needs to say who gave her this advice and what it was.
The last time I used a conveyancer they managed to get the purchase price and the stamp duty calculation wrong. When they amended the purchase price at my instruction they got the new stamp duty amount wrong too. I supplied the correct figure for them. They ain't exactly giving this work to a crack team of solicitors who go over your tax affairs to make sure everything is in order.
This is the critical bit - she needs to say who gave her this advice and what it was.
I am not sure it really matters now and she was accountable just as I am if I don't declare stuff/work out stuff correctly regardless of who gave me duff advice. I often phone up HMRC just to check when doing things that could have a tax implication. This is just for my benefit of not getting caught out but if I screw up it won't be front pages news.
If you are looking to ensure you pay as little tax as possible at least do it properly like Farage...
If you are looking to ensure you pay as little tax as possible at least do it properly like Farage...
100% this, always going to be the achileas heal of 'a working class' MP
those with wealthy backgrounds will have the knowledge and connections to make sure they dodge tax in the approved fashion.
being honest I wouldnt have a clue either, Id just do what my solicitor said.
But Im not housing minister & ignorance is no excuse etc, so I reckon she's toast, which is a shame as she will just be replaced by a faceless PPE graduate.
The RW press have been after her since forever , it was almost inevitable that she'd get caught for something
The RW press have been after her since forever , it was almost inevitable that she'd get caught for something
If you're aware of a vendetta then you make darn sure that you're cleaner than a very clean thing
She knows that the media are looking at her property dealings since the pre-election tax row and she should have sought expert counsel before media coverage, not after.
As above, her conveyancing firm has denied giving either trust or tax advice to Angela Rayner, which has always been my experience of conveyancers.
In a statement to the Telegraph, managing director Joanna Verrico said: ‘We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.’ https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/conveyancing-firm-denies-giving-rayner-tax-advice/5124370.article
I'm more intrigued why the compensation money from AGs' child would be used to buy a parents share of the family home
So the child can stay in the home as an adult, with parents taking it in turns to return to be with and look after them? The alternative is buying them a new home with the funds and the parents staying in the old home, but that doesn’t really work if the marriage has broken down.
She's gone.