Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Angela Rayner tax fail

1000 replies

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 03/09/2025 12:56

But it’s ok because she was just badly advised.
I’ll remember that excuse next time I fill in my tax return.

But still confused about one can have 2 main homes?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Judashascomeintosomemoney · 03/09/2025 19:34

BoredZelda · 03/09/2025 18:45

I’m not a Labour devotee. I had a letter from HMRC saying I owe them tax. Have I done something wrong?

Or, did I pay an amount of tax, understanding the people who are in charge of calculating that had done the right thing, and now the HMRC have all the information they have done a different calculation decide differently and now I have to pay a tax bill?

Whether she has done something “wrong’ in terms of tax laws is determined by whether she is prosecuted for it.

and now the HMRC have all the information they have done a different calculation

Well, HMRC having all of your information is quite pertinent. It remains to be seen if HMRC had all of the information regarding Angela Rayner’s case. And presumably, they didn’t only come by the relevant information in your case only after the Telegraph had published a story about your tax affairs. And finally, I’m guessing you haven’t built a career, over the last few decades, castigating Tory Scum and wanging on about other tax avoiders costing people their lives? It sort of makes a difference.

Sunholidays · 03/09/2025 19:34

One thing I don't get. How (with what money) did the trust pay Angela for her half of the house? Presumably the trust only had the funds donated by Angela and her exH?

BloominNora · 03/09/2025 19:35

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 18:42

2013 tax avoidance costs lives.

OK I can see we require different levels of standards in our politicians. I just hope for politicians that are honourable, and can be trusted to do the right thing and are seen to the right thing. And if they break the rules that they make, they resign. Labour obviously don't believe in this creed which was clear right from last July.

BTW just so you know for your own tax return. Following "professional advice" doesn't absolve you in the eyes of HMRC. You can sue your provider of advice for negligence but you are ultimately responsible.

FFS - I agree that they should resign if they break the rules 🙄

But as of this point in time, there is no evidence that Angela Raynor has intentionally broken any rules - just a lot of speculation.

If she is found to have broken the rules either through HMRC investigation, the parliamentary standards committee or some other actual evidence which comes to light then she should absolutely resign or be fired.

But you are right - we clearly do have different standards and values.

You seem to be suggesting that MPs should be held to some ridiculous standard where even the suggestion of wrong doing should result in their resignation even if it is not proven. In todays media and social media driven world, that would turn parliament into a constant revolving door as both sides would start flinging even more mud than they already do.

I don't think people should lose their jobs because of speculation or an unintentional mistake which they then correct, only where there is proof of intention or harm.

For my part I would like to see true integrity come back into politics. I don't want to see MPs slinging insults at eachother across the chamber or slamming each other in the press and calling for resignations constantly or shouting about U-turns when policy is changed because it turns out its wrong or not working. Changing policy in those situations is a good thing!

I want to see MPs debate and disgree on policy in the chamber, to air the issues and ensure that all sides are considered before coming together in committee to compromise and agree solutions which work towards the bettering the quality of life for everyone.

I want them to be at least cordial and respectful if not friends with those they disagree with politically. I want them to model to the general public that its good and healthy to disagree but that it should never be personal.

We need good people from all walks of life to step up and represent us - left wingers, right wingers, centrists, doctors, nurses, teachers, blue collar workers, soldiers, business people, state and privately educated, university educated and not.

But with the current witch hunt culture (on both sides of the isle) no one but the most rabidly idealistic, arrogant and vainglorious will want the job and they are the absolute worst people to run the country.

No ordinary person in their right mind would want to expose themselves and their families to the possibility of having their entire lives constantly raked over by the press looking for any error, issue or mistake to beat them over the head with.

Angela Raynor may have chosen this career, her ex-husband, partner and children did not.

MPs need to act with honor and integrity and that includes calling for investigations and proof of intentional and harmful wrongdoing where questions of propriety have been raised.

It does not include calling for resignations before it is confirmed whether an issue is a mistake or an intentional deception, or raking through someone's past for misdemeanors in their youth.

We wouldn't accept that approach in the workplace generally and I don't think that MPs should be held to a standard that is impossible to meet.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has things in their past they are ashamed of or would do differently - we need to get back to a place where perfection isn't the goal but growth and development is.

I'd rather have someone represent me who has made mistakes, owned that mistake, corrected it and learned from it than someone who tries to hold themselves up as beyond reproach!

BreezyShaker · 03/09/2025 19:37

IdaGlossop · 03/09/2025 19:28

I am impressed by Rayner. So much is stacked against her and yet she is deputy PM. However, this is a mess. Whatever the outcome of the Standard's Commissioner, she has shown poor judgement in not seeking legal advice on what is by her own admission a complex situation, not least because she's already had a public tussle about CGT on the council house she purchased at a large discount. She didn't need to be in this position.

She is not deputy PM on merit, she is there because the unions elected her. Keir Starmer has no power to remove her even if he wanted, he could only remove her ministerial role. He would never have appointed her, she is thick as mince.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 03/09/2025 19:38

Puzzledandpissedoff · 03/09/2025 19:02

As PPs have just mentioned the actual quote was "tax avoidance costs lives"

Apparently it was a post she put on Twitter, but I have it blocked so can't copy and paste; however never mind ... if too much is made of this I'm only waiting for "someone hacked my account"

Ironically, or perhaps deliberately, her ‘tax avoidance costs lives tweet’ was reminiscent of a similar quote that was misattributed to Margaret Thatcher many years ago, though that referenced tax evasion I think. I wonder who writes Rayners sound bites ;)

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:40

IdaGlossop · 03/09/2025 19:21

She couldn't have said that. Primary means first ie one, not two.

Primary residemce is.usually defined by the CGT regs. She claimed that Hove was her primary (ie main) residence (to avoid the stamp duty surcharge). But had also told the.council in Manchester that her consituency home in Ashton was her main residence and her home in Hove was her second home. By saying that her home in Ashton was.her main residence she avoided paying council tax on her grace and favour flat in London. She's also registered to vote in all three areas so no one can tell which is her main residence.

Complex....

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:44

BloominNora · 03/09/2025 19:35

FFS - I agree that they should resign if they break the rules 🙄

But as of this point in time, there is no evidence that Angela Raynor has intentionally broken any rules - just a lot of speculation.

If she is found to have broken the rules either through HMRC investigation, the parliamentary standards committee or some other actual evidence which comes to light then she should absolutely resign or be fired.

But you are right - we clearly do have different standards and values.

You seem to be suggesting that MPs should be held to some ridiculous standard where even the suggestion of wrong doing should result in their resignation even if it is not proven. In todays media and social media driven world, that would turn parliament into a constant revolving door as both sides would start flinging even more mud than they already do.

I don't think people should lose their jobs because of speculation or an unintentional mistake which they then correct, only where there is proof of intention or harm.

For my part I would like to see true integrity come back into politics. I don't want to see MPs slinging insults at eachother across the chamber or slamming each other in the press and calling for resignations constantly or shouting about U-turns when policy is changed because it turns out its wrong or not working. Changing policy in those situations is a good thing!

I want to see MPs debate and disgree on policy in the chamber, to air the issues and ensure that all sides are considered before coming together in committee to compromise and agree solutions which work towards the bettering the quality of life for everyone.

I want them to be at least cordial and respectful if not friends with those they disagree with politically. I want them to model to the general public that its good and healthy to disagree but that it should never be personal.

We need good people from all walks of life to step up and represent us - left wingers, right wingers, centrists, doctors, nurses, teachers, blue collar workers, soldiers, business people, state and privately educated, university educated and not.

But with the current witch hunt culture (on both sides of the isle) no one but the most rabidly idealistic, arrogant and vainglorious will want the job and they are the absolute worst people to run the country.

No ordinary person in their right mind would want to expose themselves and their families to the possibility of having their entire lives constantly raked over by the press looking for any error, issue or mistake to beat them over the head with.

Angela Raynor may have chosen this career, her ex-husband, partner and children did not.

MPs need to act with honor and integrity and that includes calling for investigations and proof of intentional and harmful wrongdoing where questions of propriety have been raised.

It does not include calling for resignations before it is confirmed whether an issue is a mistake or an intentional deception, or raking through someone's past for misdemeanors in their youth.

We wouldn't accept that approach in the workplace generally and I don't think that MPs should be held to a standard that is impossible to meet.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has things in their past they are ashamed of or would do differently - we need to get back to a place where perfection isn't the goal but growth and development is.

I'd rather have someone represent me who has made mistakes, owned that mistake, corrected it and learned from it than someone who tries to hold themselves up as beyond reproach!

She's admitted it though? Only because she got.caught out..and see my post above re the twisty turns she's been doing. Highly dodgy. She won't last.

Skipthisbit · 03/09/2025 19:44

It’s utterly hilarious watching the ludicrous excuses been trotted out. This is not a “complex situation” - it pretty bloody simple and common place in the realms of what a solicitor would deal with. This isn’t someone who has to rely on “30 mins free advise’”
She can afford the best advice from the best lawyers who (if they existed) would have done more than just ask her whether she owned another property. If she had been at all honest and wanted “proper” non tax avoidance advice, they’d have then crawled all over the trust, divorce agreement and purchase to ensure she was doing it right. To suggest anything else, it’s utter ridiculous. She tried yet another tax avoidance (not evasion) scheme and it failed. It’s utter obvious and if she was a Tory m, she’d be hounded out of office. And it’s utterly pathetic try to twist the narrative to anything other than that.
Just stop it

IdaGlossop · 03/09/2025 19:47

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:40

Primary residemce is.usually defined by the CGT regs. She claimed that Hove was her primary (ie main) residence (to avoid the stamp duty surcharge). But had also told the.council in Manchester that her consituency home in Ashton was her main residence and her home in Hove was her second home. By saying that her home in Ashton was.her main residence she avoided paying council tax on her grace and favour flat in London. She's also registered to vote in all three areas so no one can tell which is her main residence.

Complex....

Edited

I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that in response to the conveyancing solicitor asking which was her main residence, she had replied Ashton and Hove. I could hear the push-back from the solicitor. You have given me new information. Silly woman. Did she not expect this to come out?

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:48

Skipthisbit · 03/09/2025 19:44

It’s utterly hilarious watching the ludicrous excuses been trotted out. This is not a “complex situation” - it pretty bloody simple and common place in the realms of what a solicitor would deal with. This isn’t someone who has to rely on “30 mins free advise’”
She can afford the best advice from the best lawyers who (if they existed) would have done more than just ask her whether she owned another property. If she had been at all honest and wanted “proper” non tax avoidance advice, they’d have then crawled all over the trust, divorce agreement and purchase to ensure she was doing it right. To suggest anything else, it’s utter ridiculous. She tried yet another tax avoidance (not evasion) scheme and it failed. It’s utter obvious and if she was a Tory m, she’d be hounded out of office. And it’s utterly pathetic try to twist the narrative to anything other than that.
Just stop it

I know. It's painful..

She's housing minister and there's a budget coming up which will deal with taxation on housing. How can she stay in office?

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:50

Kemi Badenoch was useless in PMQs. And Keir Starmer looks like hes supporting her and that he doesn't care a fig for probity in office. I suppose he would be a hypocrite if he did...Disappointing display but unsurprising.

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 19:51

there's a budget coming up which will deal with taxation on housing.

Allegedly.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 03/09/2025 19:51

meeleymanatee · 03/09/2025 19:07

I’ve posted screenshots above. Not sure where @blossomtoes has gone though…. Maybe to go ‘nuclear’?

When blossomtoes is faced with irrefutable facts the normal approach seems to be to completely ignore those posts, go away to try and find a different angle to support the position that it’s not right to question our glorious Labour leaders ;)

This tax debacle has played out exactly as I postulated it might some days ago, based on publicly available information. The problem is, most people including it appears Angela Rayner, don’t seem to have even a passing understanding of property transactions and ownership, tax or trusts. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I’m not qualified in any of them. But I know the basics through experience, reading and general knowledge picked up over the years. Even now some people are conflating the activités and purpose of the Trust with Rayner’s actions as an individual buying a house.

jan2310 · 03/09/2025 19:54

I’m amazed that anyone is defending her. She’s an absolute piss taker - a classic example of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. She’s brought disgrace to public office.

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 19:56

Christ, can’t you even go away and eat your dinner without being maligned in your absence? If someone turned MN into a full time job without my noticing I want paying.

That looks suspiciously like a personal attack to me @Tryingtokeepgoing. MNHQ doesn’t like those.

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:57

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 19:51

there's a budget coming up which will deal with taxation on housing.

Allegedly.

Well it will be one or the other or both.

Tricky for.AR to sit there with a straight face. Although she managed it today. She's certainly got chutzpah I'll give her that. No sense of shame or embarrassment for doing the thing she used to rail against before she got power and quite an interesting amount of cash to spend.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 19:58

I am now wondering whether she is as thick as mince. Voting eligibility in three different areas, primary residence, trust/compensation for son which I am guessing has paid her for her share of the house in Ashton which enabled her to buy the place in Hove (unless I am missing some)

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:59

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 19:58

I am now wondering whether she is as thick as mince. Voting eligibility in three different areas, primary residence, trust/compensation for son which I am guessing has paid her for her share of the house in Ashton which enabled her to buy the place in Hove (unless I am missing some)

The house in Hove is £800k. Great divorce payout.

meeleymanatee · 03/09/2025 20:01

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 19:56

Christ, can’t you even go away and eat your dinner without being maligned in your absence? If someone turned MN into a full time job without my noticing I want paying.

That looks suspiciously like a personal attack to me @Tryingtokeepgoing. MNHQ doesn’t like those.

What are your thoughts on the tweets?

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 20:02

Sunholidays · 03/09/2025 19:34

One thing I don't get. How (with what money) did the trust pay Angela for her half of the house? Presumably the trust only had the funds donated by Angela and her exH?

Her son got a compensation settlement for the damage that caused his disability at birth. Those settlements tend to be in the high six, often seven, figure sums.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 20:03

The Telegraph are saying she has £650k mortgage and the rest as a deposit.

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 20:03

meeleymanatee · 03/09/2025 20:01

What are your thoughts on the tweets?

I’m not sure I’d want to be judged on eight year old tweets. On the whole I agree with them.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 20:04

Blossom. So presumably she got her son’s compensation to pay for her deposit and buy her out of Ashton.

meeleymanatee · 03/09/2025 20:04

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 20:03

I’m not sure I’d want to be judged on eight year old tweets. On the whole I agree with them.

Do you think she has been a hypocrite then?

Sevillian · 03/09/2025 20:05

BIossomtoes · 03/09/2025 20:02

Her son got a compensation settlement for the damage that caused his disability at birth. Those settlements tend to be in the high six, often seven, figure sums.

And that’s as it should be.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread