Angela Rayner tax fail

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

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?

Her other problem is she’s leant on the ‘bad advice’ excuse which is likely a lie. It’s not looking good.

Apparently the trust comprised cash paid as compensation from the NHS for DS birth injuries and care, and the Trust (which Ange is a trustee of) used that money to buy her 25% share of the house to be put in trust for DS. So now DS has a substantial asset in the trust, rather than actual cash which could help with care and needs.

Even if she did get bad advice she can't use that to get HMRC off her back. She's legally responsible for signing off her accounts (for obvious reasons).

If Rayner had any decency she would resign.

If Starmer had any backbone he would sack her.

How can she have a cabinet position in the party of tax rises when she avoids paying tax herself?

It's just manna from heaven for the people who say that politicians are all as bad as each other, just in it for themselves.

Let’s see who gave her the advice? And in writing and what her response was.

Well I'm not going to explain my background so you can take it or leave it. I really don't care.

What stands is that I find your manipulation of language revolting, in the real sense of that word.

We don't need to engage further, especially since my opinion of your posts is utterly fixed.

That may be true, but really we need to strip the UK tax law back to the very basics IMO.

There’s a good post on the other thread re PEP and that any firm will ensure advice as correct as she and they are exposed. Basically this is every day stuff and a firm will ensure no mistakes are made.

But also agree it’s her responsibility.

I'm certainly not making a claim to boss MN, you can't impute that with no basis.

My suggestion that the poster doesn't manipulate language to try to subvert discussion was a general one, not limited to posts on MN but in the wider world too.

Lots of people move on with their lives and make sure their children interests are protected and somehow manage to pay their taxes at the same time.

Well you chipped in with your peculiar fixation on semantics re a word used by absolutely everyone else without issue (perhaps not in Spain though? That may have been why you are so confused). Something in my experience no affected parent would ever give a fig for as they have more important things to concern themselves with. Hence why I suspect you aren't a genuine poster.

Having said that I am grateful for your confirmation that you will not be replying to this post. I am not feeling quite as excitable as you and it was getting rather tiring.

The wider world??? OMG! How did you know that I manipulate language to subvert discussion?? Are you following me in real life!!?

She can certainly sue the firm that allegedly gave her dodgy advice. But she's the one ultimately responsible to HMRC. It's scary. I'm never 100% confident when signing off accounts that my accountant has prepared, for that reason.

If that's ever clarified I'll be most surprised

It seems much less likely that professional advisers have got it wrong than that another caught-out politician's lying, and how much easier to say the advice was verbal and she "must have misunderstood"

And yet, the rules are set out very clearly on the HMRC website. It took me 2 minutes to find them, no tax accountant, lawyer or barrister needed:

”If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)”

If only Rayner worked somewhere where she could ask someone where to find such freely available government advice, if she wasn’t sure herself where to look…

If I were a high profile politician, I would certainly make sure I had read the rules myself and understood them. If she is this careless or ignorant about her own government’s rules, it makes me wonder what else she knows nothing about 🤷‍♀️

I'm very relaxed by nature.

That's a very narrow interpretation of my username, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I was born firmly in the UK to British parents and currently live in the UK, although I have lived abroad for work purposes in my thirties (but not Spain).

Interesting that you try to minimise my contributions by suggesting that I'm foreign. You're painting a good old (if hackneyed) portrait of yourself here :)

I'm not sure that I should apologise for calling you out on misuse of language for petty political purposes.

Did the firm give her such appalling advice based on what she told them or were certain key pieces of info left out? If there was no advice as such and she drew her own conclusions based on what she thought was correct then she definitely needs to resign.

If this plods on and she knows there is nothing in writing or she mislead her legal people by not mentioning the trust then she needs to stop digging and resign now. If she does then does the enquiry still go ahead I wonder?

What is your evidence for this?

Yes I agree. That is probably what has happened.

I just googled if under 18 could own a house and it answered me that it would be in trust and parents would be counted as legal owners. It took me 2 minutes : to phrase the question, to type it and to read the answer.
I’ve always liked Angela Rayner but now I’m not sure and feel very disappointed.

Maybe dial down the paranoia. I couldn't care less who you are in rl.

I simply deplore the use of the word 'payout' in relation to clinical negligence which affects a baby for the rest of his/ her life. Compensation is only marginally less bad.

Blimey. That is very clearly set out.

The family home is adapted for her disabled child and in trust for them. This is not a dodge. She got divorced and isn't in that family home any more.

She took advice. It is actually a line of defence in tax cases that you took advice & that advice turned out to be wrong.

I feel a bit bad for her. Its a really complicated area and she's trying to make it right.

How do you know what the advice was?

Spin or fact ? Even if it is the torygraph..the facts in this case will matter.

it is extremely sad that her son has disabilities - likely from a medical error. But if the ‘grey area’ of what is legitimate use of funds for her son’s welfare - the trust money has been used in the purchase of a home for AR - the optics are terrible. That and the tax error of £40k. It is pretty grim.