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?

What on earth are you wanging on about? The PP wasn’t comparing tax dodging with murder of MPs, she was talking about the completely unacceptable targeted vandalism at the home of a sitting MP. Whether or not Angela Rayner is found guilty of tax evasion or not, she deserves to feel safe and protected in her own home and not be targeted by deranged ‘political’ protesters. That was the point of the comparison with Joe Cox and David Amess. Having the general public tracking you down to your home and spraying graffiti over it is not MPs come under scrutiny for their behaviour for Christ’s sake.

The sooner she goes the better. I remember her calling other people 'scum'

Its supposedly for the 17yo only, to project his share, drawn up by the family court.
But as a tax expert has admitted in the Telegraph, even he didn't know about the rules on such trusts and got it wrong in an early article for the paper.

Though some may be, the money doesn't necessarily have to be used when the recipient's "a minor", @YanTanTetheraPetheraBumfitt; if they're likely to need lifelong support it's perfectly valid to keep some in a trust for future use

As mentioned upthread, it could be argued - and probably will be - that given increases in property values the trust may benefit from holding a greater share of the family home, but certain media are already running with suggestions that Rayner's used the lad's money for herself and some will take that at face value, either not knowing or not caring there's more to it than that

None of it changes how she's perceived though, especially when she's already got form for this sort of thing, and rightly or wrongly perceptions count for a lot in politics

It’s out of Rayner’s hands now.

Sir Laurie investigated Zahawi and Siddiq, of course - neither of whom survived, politically.

Precedent indicates that the process may last a week or so.

Half the Labour party are defending this (Pat McFadden this morning) and using her disabled son who she has chosen to live 100's of miles away from as a reason for her doing this.

Indeed some on this thread are saying its understandable she did what she did.

Have they been told to mention time and time again the disabled son to gain some sympathy?

Bit like the 'Smash the gangs'. That is going particularly well....

The sooner it gets cleared up the better but as others say its likely she didnt give the whole story to anyone hence the 'bad' advice. Whether she knew her situation was complex enough to warrant a very careful look into this is another matter. If she didnt she is clearly too stupid to remain in office.

I do laugh at the increasingly desperate Labour Supporters who say she couldnt be expected to know. Was probably using a bog standard high street solicitors and perhaps even tried to work it out herself using an online SD calculator makes themselves look plain daft.

SHE IS THE DPM. WITH EVERYTHING TIP TOP AVAILABLE TO HER, TAX ADVICE, ETHICS GROUPS. ETC. ARE WE SERIOUSLY EXPECTED TO BELIEVE SHE DIDNT THINK SHE NEEDED TO USE ANY OF THIS.

I don't know about the "process", Searching4Alpha, but believe it's being said that Sir Laurie Magnus will report this afternoon on whether Rayner's broken the ministerial code or not

I had to smile at the description of him as an independent ethics adviser though - as if there's any such thing as true independence when it comes to political manoeuvres

Interesting that Starmer said Rayner had people briefing against her.

Not sure what Starmer was referring to when he said people were briefing against her on Monday.

Apparently his office has now said he meant it in a general way and not this specfic incident.

I guess they would say that..

If Rayner is forced out or resigns, who will posters blame?

These people seem to say anything. It’s all meaningless. They want to keep their jobs first and foremost.

It'll be on her own head, no one else's because if this happens, she would have been found of wrong doing.

But another question is: Who will her haters blame if she is found to have made a genuine error? no further action by HMRC or ethics advisor.

They wont let i go will they? 2 Tier Tax lol!

HMRC don’t accept errors, it’s up to you to pay the right amount. If not there’s a fine.

I wonder where she’ll magic up £40k plus fine, she just “poured all her life savings” into that apartment

Never mind the capital gains tax. The real question is Is she wearing a wig?

Colour is a reference to the various colours attributed to political parties, ie Labour red, Conservative blue, Libdem yellow, etc.

Vandalism of a person’s property is targeted, no?

Violence against MPs is on a spectrum. Vandalism of their property is at one end, killing them is at the other, it’s a question of degree.

You appear to be alone in “misunderstanding” my post. Make of that what you will.
Now that I’ve elaborated so “misunderstanding” is impossible, presumably you don’t disagree with the sentiment?

My view is that if its found that she took proper legal advice, gave them all the facts about the trust and then THEY gave the wrong advice that will be different (for me). Not a conversation in the HOC bar or a passing comment in a corridor.

However if its found she left out key pieces of info because she 'thought' she didnt have another house that is completely different. We could all say we didnt think this and that applied to us especially when the lack of info favours us again!

She is the flipping DPM.

I’m not aiming anything.

I pointed out in my PP that its very easy to make an honest mistake answering the standard questions when a trust is set up in this situation for a child or vulnerable adult. As I said in the PP - my in-laws nearly fell foul in a similar way but luckily for them the solicitor was a personal friend, knew their circumstances well and pointed out the error. If he had not been a friend of long standing he would not have recognised the error. I don’t find it hard to believe this fuck up was an error rather than deliberate. Its much harder to see the “honest error” in claiming from the tax payer to heat your horses’ stables or build a duck house in your moat or much of the property flipping which doesn’t correlate with a change in role as MP.

There are two things which come out of this for me. 1) the complexity around the stamp duty rules and trusts needs reviewing. 2) its high time MPs' need for multiple location working was managed in line with other private and public sector employees.

if you type into Chat GPT her tax situation, it gives the correct answer in 10 seconds.

Funny how all these advisors got it so wrong. And poor Ange just believed them, with no knowledge at all of how housing tax works despite her being in charge of housing where it’s clear you’d really need to know what the taxation system is because it is a critical driver of how vibrant, or not, the housing market is. She wants to build half a million houses to ‘solve the housing crisis’ yet has no awareness of the taxation system that may be influencing demand and thereby the building of houses? Pull the other one

Blossom - quite honestly I read your comments as the vandalism at her house is on par with murder? Really???

I was burgled. The police were uninterested. They gave me a crime number and told me to get a dog. I put buglary on par with this grafitti and certainly not murder!

I’ve explained to the point where no further explanation is possible. If you don’t understand what a spectrum is you could maybe look it up. I’m not engaging any more about it.

Are you saying Rayner answered incorrectly?

Not the ‘bad advice’ claim as previously said?

Dislike her but I don’t think she did anything wrong. She followed the advice she was given by professionals.

Is anyone else getting really tired of these faux naive “Are you saying …” posts? How hard is it to understand that people mean what they say? Just read what’s written.

Scroll past then. I’m certainly tired of this policing.

PPs who work in tax and as solicitors have spelt out that AR's circumstances are not simple. Most people buying a property do not have a disabled child for whom they are making provision thrugh a trust, with the child living in the property they previously part-owned. Is ChatGPT up to the job of providing accurate guidance for this?

The key point, and one I have learnt here, is that she will have had access to specialist expert advice because she is a prominent politician. That's the other one that needs pulling.