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?

Posters keep saying that this trust business is a really complicated area, but I disagree: these trusts are quite common in cases of children with disabilities, tax advice seems to be easily available from HMRC and not difficult to understand, and Angela is a government minister and an experienced politician with access to advisors of all sorts.

Like I said in my previous post, Angela Rayner has form for this, so she should have been more careful - there is no excuse when she will have access to the HMRC department dealing with MP's tax affairs - she should have run it by them first. Why didn't she? Because she knew her approach was morally dubious at best, tax avoidance at worst.

Posters saying that she was just trying to protect her disabled child's interests, by putting the family home in trust for him, are not understanding what she did. Her disabled child received compensation due to injuries sustained at birth, this money was placed in trust for her child - she is a trustee of the trust and makes decisions on how that money is spent, presumably in the best interests of her child. She did not gift her share of the family home to her child, she wasn't trying to reduce inheritance tax. She used her child's money from the trust, to buy herself out of the family home (despite still living there). She then took that money to buy herself an expensive flat by the seaside with her on/off partner. That is quite different from putting a home, you have paid for, in trust for your disabled child to help support them after you are no longer here. She is despicable. Her partner is no better - what sort of man leaves his pregnant wife and young child to take up with another woman, worse still, what sort of woman would want a man like this? Sorry, Angela Rayner may have overcome adversity and risen to the top, but, she is morally lacking.

If it feels complicated and greyish in terms of tax payment - I’d always err in the side of caution and pay the tax. She decided the opposite - took a risk and got it wrong. I don’t feel bad for her one bit.

Actually, Angela still considers the family home her home, as per her statement today: The sale of the property in Ashton-under-Lyne to the trust has not altered my family life. It remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.

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

Nope.

You promised not to reply, though!

On Channel 4 tonight an expert came on who said that if the people who set up the trust advised her to do this wrong thing, they would be in the wrong; but if it was the conveyancer, then she would be.

I don’t believe her for one second. A simple Google search would have told her that she was liable for second property tax, never mind she had advisors helping her. She should have also considered the optics here given her position and the position her government are taking in terms of second properties and inheritance tax. I’m saying this as someone who’s correctly paid second property tax - taxes for thee but not for me!

But the NHS itself uses the word compensation widely in the case of negligence claims. I understand that you might not like it, but if it’s widely used and understood terminology within the NHS then substituting other words could cause confusion. My late husband was the victim of proven clinical negligence, and our lawyer and that of the NHS used the word payout and compensation in correspondence and dialogue. It’s clear and it’s factual. Public services are encouraged to use plain English.

https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/advice-for-claimants/

It’s not really about a disabled child though is it? That’s a red herring for sympathy. All the fannyanning around with where the council tax was paid and which was first and second residence for that started suspiciously just before the flat purchase went through.

Even if she got bad advice she was seeking that advice to pay as little as she could get away with not what was fair and would usually be due. While they’ve at times harped on about clamping down on this style of tax evasion.

When everything is going up and people are struggling to feed their kids she’s totally lost touch and respect - If she couldn’t afford the stamp duty perhaps she should have gone for a property that ONLY cost three quarters of a million.

She needs to go and the labour party need to work out who they are supposed to be and what the hell they are meant to be doing because nobody seems to have any idea!

And as Shoosmiths, the Trusts advisors, have clarified that they did not provide her with any advice on the property transaction I think we can see where this is going. As some of us have been saying for days.

Pretty much the clearest and best post on this thread. This is exactly the situation. It’s of her own making. Dubious use of the funds of the trust and tax underpayment of a significant amount. Quite honestly she would be having a field day if this was a political opponent - or ‘Tory scum’ as she so eloquently referred to them.

Please would you show the Google question? Would it include the word Trust?
Out of interest let’s try. ( When she did this AI hadn’t quite come, so AI shouldn’t be asked.)

Yep you’re right

Come on. Admit it. Of course you are stalking me. How else would you know about my "manipulation of language to subvert discussion...in the wider world". You said that's what I did outside MN. Don't backtrack now.

Or were you time wasting in an excitable way again and making things up?.

First result on Google:

You must pay the higher Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) rates when you buy a residential property (or a part of one) for £40,000 or more, if all the following apply:

• it will not be the only residential property worth £40,000 or more that you own (or part own) anywhere in the world
• you have not sold or given away your previous main home
• no one else has a lease on it which has more than 21 years left to run

www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property

If she did misuse her trustee powers to benefit herself then that's a serious accusation as its a fiduciary position. She will have to provide trust accounts and justify the decision. I don't think it could be criticised really. Her child owns a share of a house although presumably the ex husband will be paying the trust a proportionate rent to live in house 75% owned by the trust.

Actually that's quite an interesting question in itself.

She bought the Hove property early this year, of course she could have used AI.

That is quite illuminating !

It seems like I was naive to have given her the benefit of doubt in PP

Ridiculous. Read back.

This is a ridiculous story. If her adviser had all of the facts. Incl that her under age child owned a property via a trust. The adviser would have told her she would be liable for the additional stamp duty because that is how the trust laws work the property laws…..

she messed this up. And only came clean when she was about to be exposed.

it stinks.

They used their disabled son’s trust fund ( settlement possibly related to his disability) to buy out her share of the house. There are things that need to be done before this can happen?

Indeed! The problem with ‘grey areas’ in legal definitions - is that they give rise to…grey areas. It comes down to a judgement call as to what is in the ‘best interests of the child’ when trustees spend the funds of the child’s trust. The problem for AR is that it is a complete can of worms now. She’ll begin to wish that she’d simply paid the £40k as the next few weeks are going to be absolutely hideous for her.

She is stuffed either way.

If she manages to ride this out she needs to find £40k NOW

If she has no way of proving any advice was given and under what circumstances bar it was verbal or she misunderstood she is finished.

Both Sky and BBC say she is in real trouble and tbh so is Starmer. He said people were briefing against her and used the class card too. What did he know in the last few days and did he even check what she told him. I am surprised he didn’t question it further. He looks like a right plonker now.

Apparently the investigation could be completed within a week which is right. You don’t want this dragging on.

My understanding is that when she is living in that house (which she said she does), because it’s in trust, she should be paying market rent . Does she?