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?

I think that in this case she is probably the victim of poor advice. It is a complex area.

However, this is not the first time she has been under suspicion for property switching, and I think she was very lucky to have escaped without censure last time, and the overwhelming impression of her now, whether true or not, is of someone who thinks it's okay to fiddle the system to your advantage.

The main news stories at the moment are all about her, and that's political poison.

If she had any integrity at all she would step down now.

Well, it's not surprising you won't apologise as you can only see it from your point of view.

However, you are doing a huge disservice to those innocent victims and their families by comparing a possible tax-dodge with victims of murder who were simply doing their jobs as MPs.

MPs come under scrutiny for their behaviour and this is what is happening now.

I feel sorry for her children dragged into this, but I feel she needs to step aside.

Oh, I agree. I know nothing about trusts, other than the fact they exist, nor am I a tax specialist, clearly, so I would not provide advice on this.

I haven't read the Shoosmiths statement (it doesn't readily come up for me as a google search), but if they're suggesting she withheld information, then that's another matter. I would hope they are certain that they asked all the right questions and were confident in her ability to be able to answer them.

I mention the fact that as an accountant, to demonstrate that even those supposedly appropriately qualified could see how it's possible to make a mistake.

The Shoosmith statement was part of the BBC online reporting yesterday. It was easily found.

I mention the fact that as an accountant, to demonstrate that even those supposedly appropriately qualified could see how it's possible to make a mistake.

Anyone qualified in anything can make a mistake. But as a Dep PM you find lawyers who know their stuff IF you give them all the facts they need.

Has she also used the compensation money for her son to purchase the Brighton flat! I thought compensation should only be used for something which benefits that person when they’re still a minor. How does her having a flat in Brighton benefit him?

The government are using the disabled son argument as reasoning for being sympathetic to her mistake, yet this is the same government who are trying to pull benefits from disabled people.

According to Shoosmiths they did not act for her on the purchase but they seem to have been involved in setting up the original trust.

It says they’re also trustees.

you are doing a huge disservice to those innocent victims and their families by comparing a possible tax-dodge with victims of murder who were simply doing their jobs as MPs.

I didn’t do that. Reread my post.

I’d say it’s doubtful, as the pp says a PEP department would deal with thus.

I think what is meant is that (possibly) the house she lived in with the ex and her children was bought partly by the compensation. So by selling her share in it to the trust she has directly/ indirectly benefited from it. But as her son will benefit from the house, when he's an adult, it seems to be stretching the point somewhat.

As a tax person I had very little sympathy for AR at first. I thought she’d just decided which home to call her principal private residence to reduce her tax bill. It’s clearly not the case. This is a complex area of tax. She has no financial interest in the property, and yet she is treated as having an interest due to her son’s age. She would have needed a stamp duty expert to explain his to her. The average conveyancing solicitor wouldn’t have a clue.

I’m not a fan of hers but I say leave her be. At least it highlights how unnecessarily complex our tax legislation is.

Frankly anyone who is happy with politicians of any colour being targeted like this is a despicable excuse for a human being. Have we really learned nothing from the murders of David Amess and Jo Cox?

This is what you said @Blossomtoes.

Where does the 'colour' issue arise?

AR is not being 'targeted'.
She is being held to account for her mistakes and the inquiry is there to understand how it occurred.

Why you compare this to murders of DA and JC is tasteless. They had done nothing wrong.

If you keep saying I or others misunderstand your point, maybe explain more carefully what you mean.

The Telegraph agrees with you.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/1a89f8718ce3eaea

Yes this is my ex's pov, a tax account and quite a keen Tory.

Bear in mind, even if she had paid the higher rate, within 3 years, her son is 17, she would be able to have the tax refunded, once he is 18 and able to own his share himself.

It comes up pretty much every time she is discussed, whether relevant or not and always in rather sexist and classist terms.

Rayner’s financial affairs are complex due to divorce, disabled child trust, multi location job etc. She says she thought she was following the correct advice, the trust administrators say “not our fault”. None of us know the reality. Trusts, particularly trusts held for vulnerable children or adults are complex where they involve family property. Its easy to make an error even if you are trying to be honest. My in-laws very nearly fell foul of this - luckily the solicitor was a personal friend and pointed out what they had wrong, but only because he had personal knowledge of them and spotted the error. In this case its also complicated by one parent having a recognised dual location job.

Many of the endless issues around MP property portfolios and property flipping, reciprocal renting etc could be addressed by treating MPs in the same way as any other employee public or private.

For most of us where secondary location work is required we have approved chains/limits for short term stays and central sourcing and approval for longer term lets. All audited as part of the regular audits and clear rules about any conflicts of interest (I could not, for example simply charge rent to stay in a relatives’ property).

This mess where MP’s flip homes and rent to each other and married MPs each have a different property as “primary residence” for tax purposes is just asking for trouble. Most of the absurd rules around MP expensing were brought in during the Thatcher era (to boost MP income whilst claiming to freeze pay) and it should have been normalised long since.

That makes sense I guess.

Are you doubting Shoosmiths statement? Why?

It always was likely to be a lie, EasternStandard, but I didn't know about the PEP thing either, and with that addition there seems little doubt

Entirely depends on the terms of the trust; if its solely in the name of the disabled child then that’s possible, but if the trust is jointly for both children then one will still be a minor, won’t they?

I’m pointing out that its possible for the non expert to give the wrong answer to a question unintentionally as my in-laws did.

Shoosmiths have simply said they did not supply the conveyancing services on the Hove property. No more, no less.

No, the DT does not agree.

Read the editorials etc.

Warburton is a lone voice.

Who are you aiming this at in Rayner’s case? Shoosmiths or some other supposed advisor?