Page 21 | Angela Rayner tax fail

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 2025-09-03T11:56:44+00:00

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?

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:30

@Sevillian

I won't be reading back.

I'll be watching my back though 😉 For excitable stalkers who report back to MN about my "manipulation of language to subvert discussion in the wider world" outside MN..Specifically, use of the term "pay out" which is wrong-speak (bad NHS) and definitely needs "calling out". Lucky we've got you monitoring language for the benefit of absolutely no one.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 22:35

Not legally trained but I am sure you need to pay rent if still living in the house.

Otherwise couldn’t we all put our houses into trust for our children (mine are grown up), not pay rent and then when you pass it’s excluded from your estate.

ScrollingLeaves · 03/09/2025 22:35

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 03/09/2025 22:30

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?

Show quote history

Is it ‘living in it’ in the usual sense if you are there to look after the special needs child?

How does this go on, I wonder? Do the parents have to pay the trust rent? Does the trust then pay them as carers? And do they then pay tax for their profits as care workers?

If it is it shouldn’t be. Give people in this position some help.

Original poster

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 03/09/2025 22:36

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:10

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.

Edited

Show quote history

And shouldn’t she also be paying market rent when she is living there?

OP posts:

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 22:36

If the Guardian are saying you are in peril and they are very left leaning you are really in trouble.

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:38

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 03/09/2025 22:30

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?

Show quote history

That's usually to avoid IHT so you don't get accused of retaining a benefit.
I'm interested in whether they are paying rent on the basis the trust owns 75% of the house. So as trustees they have a duty to act in the interests of the beneficiary (the child) and therefore should be charging rent to produce an income for the trust which they otherwise would get if it was rented on the open market. Presumably they can argue that it's in the child's interests to allow the carers(parents) to live there for free but it's an interesting point.

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:39

ScrollingLeaves · 03/09/2025 22:35

Is it ‘living in it’ in the usual sense if you are there to look after the special needs child?

How does this go on, I wonder? Do the parents have to pay the trust rent? Does the trust then pay them as carers? And do they then pay tax for their profits as care workers?

If it is it shouldn’t be. Give people in this position some help.

Show quote history

It's interesting and something that should really have stayed private but for her fiddling with the stamp duty. Now everything is open to investigation.

usernamealreadytaken · 03/09/2025 22:41

NuovaPilbeam · 03/09/2025 21:41

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.

She is still in the family home; she and exDH nest and coparent. DS is a minor so home is still seen as owned by parents (and they are named trustees).

HellsBalls · 03/09/2025 22:46

She’s toast. Only fessed up when exposure was imminent. Terrible optics. Terrible hypocrisy.
Starmer needs shot of her now to retain any credibility.
I reckon on a resignation this weekend.

Anyone want to buy a flat in Hove? One is just about to come up for sale.

VaccineSticker · 03/09/2025 22:47

Regardless of the advice she’s been given, she is a hypocrite and her mate Bridgette Phillipson (who is a bigger hypocrite) is defending her by saying people are free to spend their money on whatever way they choose. They have lost all credibility and integrity.

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:49

VaccineSticker · 03/09/2025 22:47

Regardless of the advice she’s been given, she is a hypocrite and her mate Bridgette Phillipson (who is a bigger hypocrite) is defending her by saying people are free to spend their money on whatever way they choose. They have lost all credibility and integrity.

Now that.. after all the criticism of people choosing to spend their money on education... took the proverbial biscuit, whatever you think about private schools.

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:50

HellsBalls · 03/09/2025 22:46

She’s toast. Only fessed up when exposure was imminent. Terrible optics. Terrible hypocrisy.
Starmer needs shot of her now to retain any credibility.
I reckon on a resignation this weekend.

Anyone want to buy a flat in Hove? One is just about to come up for sale.

Starmer doesn't care. He supports her, by the look of PMQs. He's not one to worry about morals.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 22:51

Re rent for Ashton. How many days has she actually been there over the last year? DPM is a gruelling role which really needs you in London.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 03/09/2025 22:55

It is not complex. First time buyer, moving home or additional property. 3 different options. If in a trust but she is still alive then still her property.

EasternStandard · 03/09/2025 22:59

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:50

Starmer doesn't care. He supports her, by the look of PMQs. He's not one to worry about morals.

Show quote history

They all back each other as they’re as bad as each other.

IdaGlossop · 03/09/2025 22:59

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 19:59

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

Show quote history

She bought the Hove property with her partner. £160,000 was paid as a deposit, funded from the proceeds of sale of her share of the Aston house. Thus in turn was funded from the compensation payment for her disabled son. That leaves about £320,000 each for the mortgage.

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 23:08

Unless I am missing something why would she raid the Trust, why not just keep her share of the house. It’s not as though she will evict her son. Why didn’t she leave as is especially as she claims to go there often?

Hominim · 03/09/2025 23:09

Clearinguptheclutter · 03/09/2025 15:46

i think its highly awkward but she did what she was advised to do - she only owns one home so it's not unreaonable to think that you only would only need to pay tax on one home. However given her position she shoud have looekd at it all a bit more carefully.

I am not a fan generally however right wingers have been out to get her since day one because of her accent and working class roots.

…and the fact she’s a bit of a nob. Why isn’t she going to sue this advisor then? Methinks they don’t really exist…

Tryingtokeepgoing · 03/09/2025 23:10

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 23:08

Unless I am missing something why would she raid the Trust, why not just keep her share of the house. It’s not as though she will evict her son. Why didn’t she leave as is especially as she claims to go there often?

Perhaps she needed the cash as the deposit on the flat in Brighton.

tramtracks · 03/09/2025 23:11

Lifeinthepit · 03/09/2025 22:38

That's usually to avoid IHT so you don't get accused of retaining a benefit.
I'm interested in whether they are paying rent on the basis the trust owns 75% of the house. So as trustees they have a duty to act in the interests of the beneficiary (the child) and therefore should be charging rent to produce an income for the trust which they otherwise would get if it was rented on the open market. Presumably they can argue that it's in the child's interests to allow the carers(parents) to live there for free but it's an interesting point.

Show quote history

It is. I think everyone will agree that it is an incredibly sad situation to be in - having a child needing support and a trust to provide for him after a medical error. The problem here is that the trust itself is now under scrutiny. She is a joint trustee and must manage it wholly with the child’s best interests in mind. If there’s any spending of those funds on things only for the trustees personal use (cars, tvs etc etc) - I think it will be uncovered. Let’s hope she’s absolutely clean in this - otherwise she really will be toast.

Hominim · 03/09/2025 23:13

NoJamSlags · 03/09/2025 21:49

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.

I wondered about this - it seems she is using money given as a payment for her child

tramtracks · 03/09/2025 23:13

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 23:08

Unless I am missing something why would she raid the Trust, why not just keep her share of the house. It’s not as though she will evict her son. Why didn’t she leave as is especially as she claims to go there often?

Flat deposit for the Hove property.

Mumof2wifeof1crazytimes · 03/09/2025 23:16

I have not read the full thread but I can’t believe someone who is so senior in the government could have got this so wrong and is blaming it on the legal advice she received. She is either full of BS or is rather stupid either way, she is not suitable for the position she currently holds which is the same for the majority of politicians.

tramtracks · 03/09/2025 23:22

Hominim · 03/09/2025 23:13

I wondered about this - it seems she is using money given as a payment for her child

Show quote history

Not sure this is entirely true. The parents both decided it was in the best interest of their child for him/her to remain the family home after they split up so they used the trust funds to ensure this could happen by buying out AR. Seems ok to me in this regard. The optics aren’t great as AR then went on to use the funds asap to buy a flat in Hove with her new partner. So it ‘looks like’ the main reason for the trust set up etc was the need for AR to access funds to help with this. Then also she didn’t pay the correct tax on the purchase.

IdaGlossop · 03/09/2025 23:28

PropertyD · 03/09/2025 23:08

Unless I am missing something why would she raid the Trust, why not just keep her share of the house. It’s not as though she will evict her son. Why didn’t she leave as is especially as she claims to go there often?

She didn't raid the trust. The trust bought her share of the house using the compensation money received for her son. Th trust is a way of providing security for her son, who will not be able to be independent when he reaches adulthood, no matter what may happen to his parents.