Angela Rayner's tax affairs

So you want Rayner to provide the evidence but those constantly casting slurs, do not have to provide their evidence?

HMRC have cleared her of wrong doing, that is the end of the story.

But of course, those with agenda's wont accept this.

Slinging dirt to see how much sticks is a pretty poor argument.

I mostly cannot bear the woman, but I do feel a little sorry for her - just my guess that her upbringing / background resulted in a weakness for money, gifts, doing things not by the book. Nobody forgets to pay £40k, nobody.

The stuff I’ve read about the first house she owned also put me off her:

https://www.lordashcroft.com/2024/02/hypocrite-rayners-48k-profit-on-council-house-sale/

8See Dan’s Twitter feed for further details*

He also says;

Mr Aaronson is an eminent KC - but he is acting for one party to a dispute, and Ms Rayner's team will not provide any documentary evidence. So as things stand the position remains: we can't assess whether HMRC acted correctly.

If Ms Rayner wants people to accept that she acted properly, and HMRC's decision was correct, then she should release the evidence that led HMRC to conclude she was not careless.

I'm amazed at how many people are stupid enough to think that wither Rayner cleared herself, or that she was cleared because of political reasons.

How do those pp who've made these comments come to this conclusion?

Looking for a swathe of posters on this thread admitting they were wrong.

But not holding my breath.

After talking to the lawyer that represented Angela Raynor during the HMRC investigation Dan Neidle provided an update this evening that she didn’t get any penalties because:

Aaronson says that the actual facts demonstrated that Ms Rayner had been given definitive advice there was no higher rate SDLT charge, without a caveat.

So she hadn’t been careless at all, which is why she was exonerated. No story here. See Dan’s Twitter feed for further details.

Rayner says she didn't own a property and her initial advice agreed... why should she seek out further advice?

HMRC do not require an individual to seek out a tax expert & who would be liable if they got it wrong if they did insist on individuals paying for very expensive tax advice?

HMRC will always come after the individual & a penalty will only occur if the individual is careless or deliberate... Rayner didn't meet this threshold - HMRC deemed she made a mistake.

Perhaps Dan Needle should take his "evidence" of favouritism to HMRC but it sounds to me that whatever Rayner does, certain sections of the media will seek her out.

Great pity they don't investigate all politicians with such gusto.

Why is it baffling to you that on a thread where OP complained about her treatment at the hands of HMRC compared to Angela Rayner’s so-called exoneration, people are talking about Angela Rayner? The Labour Party is in government and she is being discussed as a possible contender for the highest office. We are allowed to discuss it and have a view on it. I can’t stand Reform and agree NF is totally dodgy (and Tice is far worse) but that is not the topic of this thread!

Angela Rayner 100% will not have received any sort of special treatment here.

Dan Neidle/Tax Policy Associates are clearly not convinced by that claim (NB Dan Neidle is a Labour Party member and former member of Labour's senior disciplinary body, the NCC):

It is hard to see how a taxpayer, undertaking a complex transaction involving a court-ordered trust for a disabled child and the purchase of a second property, and twice told to obtain specialist tax advice, can be said to have taken reasonable care by not doing so. That conclusion is even harder where the taxpayer was Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing...

Ms Rayner’s mistake looks like exactly the kind of thing that happens when people with complicated personal arrangements don’t obtain specialist tax advice.

the “careless” test in Schedule 24 is not about morality, or the fairness of a policy. It asks a narrow, technical question: did the taxpayer take the care that a reasonable person in their position would take? On the publicly stated facts, the answer to that question still looks to us like “no”. HMRC’s contrary conclusion will be welcomed by Ms Rayner, but it raises a question of consistency: ordinary taxpayers who ignore explicit advice to consult a specialist routinely receive careless penalties. It is not obvious why this case is different.

It’s actually baffling to me. Farage is out here accepting bribes, Tice has admitted he failed to pay tax due from his company and claimed it was “because he paid it personally”, but we can just ignore that

Its a really complex area and it can be a defence against penalties that you sought advice. You don't just pay penalties because you got it wrong, if you did try to get it right. You usually have to be proven to have been careless or deliberate in getting it wrong. She will have been charged late payment interest.

Usually if you've got evidence you were in hospital etc you can get a late filing charge lifted.

Hmrc have loads of really right governance and control. Angela Rayner 100% will not have received any sort of special treatment here.

This!

SDLT and income tax are two different things. The income tax deadline is well known. She was given poor advice, and paid the tax due.

Why are people more upset by this than Farage’s £5 million gift?

Dan Neidle/Tax Policy Associates

June 3, 2024
Some people on social media are convinced that Jeremy Hunt avoided tax when he bought seven flats through a company in 2018. We've analysed the transaction and believe it's clear that he didn't.

“Again, you are promoting the idea that divorcing parents of a disabled child should pay stamp duty on their new home in a way that divorcing parents of able bodied children rarely do.
Again I suggest separate the politics from the policy - I would say some transitional model is needed.
Your desperation to promote Rayner as a deliberate tax dodger is a quite separate issue. Lets look at Hunt who “forgot” to pay in excess of 100k stamp duty when flipping properties in a far less complex situation and I believe it overlapped with his job as Chancellor. Funny how little attention that has received here.”

@C8H10N4O2 - why do you not go and campaign on an amendment to the rules around additional stamp duty rather than having a go at me?
I don’t think AR deliberately “tax dodged”. I sort of agree with Dan Neidle and think she was a bit careless and should have gotten specialist tax advice. And if she followed it, it may well have saved her 40k and a resignation as a deputy.

As a politician she has to follow the law and tax rules as they stand, not as you think they “should” be.
My understanding is that additional stamp duty was introduced to bite for second home owners and small time landlords to pay extra. It has only been around for 10 years. If you “sell” within 18 months, you can get a refund. No idea if she can still structure around that or not as I have no idea how the trust operates that she set up or whether she can sell her share to her ex etc.

Of course there were no consequences for her. One rule for them, another for everyone else.

@Araminta1003 it sounds like the trust set up for the disabled son owned 50% of the property which had been adapted to meet his needs. His dad and his mum owned 25% each and as they were separated/divorced had a nesting arrangement.

Obviously it would have been better for the trust or ex to buy out ARs share before she bought another property and remove her from the deeds but maybe this was not financially possible or was prohibited by the terms of the trust or the parties were not willing and AR bought another property whilst legally remaining on the deeds of a property 50% owned by trust and 25% owned by her ex.

This is an unusual and complex circumstance due to specific circumstances of lifelong disability of your child and not the tax dodge of a grifter.

AR is crucified but true tax dodgers get a free pass from the right wing press if they are already wealthy - imagine if AR had received a £5m gift! If it’s a personal rather than party gift her son would have a secure home for life and she would have plenty left over for a new home plus security to stop the nasty grafity plus a couple of million for extras.

I have addressed that in an earlier post, HMRC do not require an individual to seek expert tax advice....

The reason being is that if that advice is wrong, who do HMRC go to get the extra tax from? who is liable.... which firm would agree to give advice to an individual ie a lay person, shd they be wrong?

Conveyancing solicitors are all a reasonable person would expect to consult on this.

Different from corporations, companies etc.

Angela Rayner was advised by 2 different firms on 2 different occasions to seek more specialised advice re the tax situation.
She chose not to.
Whether you believe she has received special treatment from HMRC or not she's shown her judgement is flawed - she thought she knew best.
It's no good saying "but these are very complicated tax issues". Of course they are,and that's exactly why she should have taken the advice given and engaged a specialist.

This. HMRC don't hammer people where there is complexity, and where there is no evidence of deliberate misbehaviour. It's easy enough to google this.

In other words, she's been treated exactly the same as you or I probably would be. Which I think is exactly right.

Don't let that get in the way of a good story though.

In other news, I'm entirely comfortable with Farage taking £5m bribes from shady businesspeople. Nothing to see there.

Polanski has never been in serious contention as a politician until recently - hence of course scrutiny is playing catch up and dodgy claims or poorly thought out policies are going to attract scrutiny as Reform have found over the past year. The Greens are yet to go through their backlog of dodgy councillors and spokespeople so its not surprising if they appear a lot in the press.

Hunt on the other had - I was mystified about the minimal coverage. Even though he was no longer a significant political figure he had been in Cabinet for most of the 14 years and will presumably be bumped up at some point.

Women always get more scrutiny and as a working class woman in Labour Rayner gets more than her share and always has done.

You haven’t answered the point. Precisely because it was complex, she was advised on two separate occasions she should get legal advice. She did not do so and came to her own conclusion, on a complex matter, that tax was not due. Despite this, HMRC has decided that she was not careless but acted with reasonable care. It is mystifying, and I struggle to find any justification for their decision other to give her special treatment that an ordinary member of the public wouldn’t have received.