To think that surely Rayner has to go.

[Blankscreen]

Well well well.

So now it emerges that Rayner rearranged her property affairs and declared to HMRC that her new flat in Brighton is her main residence and saved £40k on the SDLT bill as a result.

She has then apparently declared to the local councils the complete opposite.

I'm sure slimeball Kier will defend and say it was perfectly legal blah blah blah.

Not to mention she has a grace and favour house funded by tax payers in London as her constituency office is so far away. Yet she 'lives' in Brighton - surely she could just commute that distance like may others do every day.

Surely she has to go.

If you’ve ever dealt with HMRC after taking advice you would know.

The rest of us can’t claim we don’t understand, we took advice etc.
It’s our responsibility and that’s how we minions are treated. Raynor isn’t special

Yes no-one else is allowed the “I relied on the professionals” excuse. Look at all the people caught out by offshore tax avoidance schemes run by qualified accountants.

when you sign your tax return you sign to say you are responsible and agree the figures, even if an accountant has done it for you.

I think if you could present HMRC with evidence of incorrect legal advice you’d have a pretty good defence. Obviously you’d still have to pay the tax, just as Rayner is.

Iirc the Tories sacked their Ethics Adviser who was not replaced. Who could have imagined that?

Yep

No
Doesn't work like that
They are not interested in excuses

The truth is more prosaic - we both know that the later budget gives Reeves some implied time value. Time to calm the markets, time to trial policy etc. Evidently Rayner did not receive the memo.

Scrutiny comes with high office - trust me, I know. So, that is no excuse - nor is the rationale for the trust - please, don’t try to play that card. Lord Alli probably introduced the accountant (call it a hunch).

Sometimes, you cannot defend the indefensible.

Yep, spot on. Look what happened to these people who took advice
https://news.sky.com/story/rise-in-suicide-attempts-linked-to-hmrc-tax-crackdown-as-mps-criticise-sham-review-in-to-loan-charge-13345828

Even take away the rank hypocrisy of it all, given that she is the Secretary of State for Housing you would have thought that she could have called on some excellent advice from any number of well placed sources within her department who would have accurately called the legal positioning of all of this.

I accept there is a Trust that has been set up for her son, but even so she would have had ample opportunity to get the correct position on all of this.

You simply cannot shout from the rooftops all over social media when others try and reduce their own tax liabilities and then not be held to account when you try and reduce your due taxation. Given the position she holds it's even more ridiculous. Secretary of Sate for Housing.

Do you sign a form to indicate you agree the amount of stamp duty for a house purchase? It’s been a very long time but I don’t remember one.

Blossom, Blossom.

Have you ever dealt with HMRC on a serious matter? Rayner is the DPM - she is not a ‘civilian’. She has to be held to a higher standard.

Shes not expected by Hmrc to be held to a higher standard she’s the same as the rest of us.
but
Agree
We expect higher from someone in her position though

And I expect the advice about the trust was perfectly correct. But I don’t suppose they did the conveyancing for the purchase of a flat in Brighton, and I expect when whoever did asked if if she had any interest in another property in the UK she said no. The SDLT submission will have followed that, not the structure of the trust. I might be wrong, but that seems the most likely explanation of this debacle.

It’s all handled via a conveyancer.

Dont forget when the completion statement is issued, its incumbent on the purchaser to check it etc.

Held to a higher standard by us, yes.

But, if you are the HMRC case officer assigned to her - you see where I am going, I hope.

No I haven’t. I’ve never needed to. Every penny of my taxable income has been dealt with via PAYE but I’ve trusted HMRC to get it right. If I needed to pay a top notch specialist tax firm of lawyers like Shoosmiths for advice I don’t think it would be too much to expect it to be correct. Otherwise why bother?

Labour, the gift that keeps on giving. Their entire cabinet are an absolute joke.

‘’I deeply regret the error that has been made. I am committed to resolving this matter fully and providing the transparency that public service demands. It is for that reason I have today referred myself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and will provide him with my fullest cooperation and access to all the information he requires.”

NOT ‘I deeply regret the error I made’

Theres that brass neck, again.

"If you or your client sends in a document that has a mistake, HMRC will charge a penalty if the error is:

• because of a lack of ‘reasonable care’
• deliberate — such as intentionally sending incorrect information
• deliberate and concealed — for example, intentionally sending incorrect information and taking steps to hide the error

The level of the penalty is linked to the reason why the error occurred."

So HMRC would need to decide whether Rayner took reasonable care when deciding what penalty to apply, if any - or if, indeed, the error was deliberate. But you're right that the responsibility is hers so she has to pay and then sue if she feels she was misadvised.

Zahwani wasn't sacked for failing to pay tax; he was sacked for failing to disclose he was under investigation by HMRC.

OK, well trust law can be complicated. Rayner knew what she was doing - trying to mitigate her tax exposure.

Well hopefully now you know how it works

That’s assuming her sob story is accurate. It’s all about damage limitation. What she says happened, and what actually happened, and the truth somewhere in the middle.

Generally, responsibility rests with the person, including where a professional acts as an agent for the person.

I imagine that accountants submit tax returns and the like on the basis that the client has agreed it and that it’s prepared in good faith on the basis of the client’s instructions. But I’m not an accountant so that’s my best guess only.

If the professional is negligent they can be sued. That’s what professional indemnity is for. But, AFAIK, the agent/adviser doesn’t stand in the shoes of the client if HMRC or other enforcers come knocking.

And let’s please retain some dignity, and keep disabled children out of it.

Utterly shameful.

You call it mitigating her tax exposure, I call it looking after her disabled child.