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 wonder how much she declared to her legal advisor?

I suspect she’s about to be taken down by them because either they’re incompetent and need to be struck off or she lied to them. I know which one is most likely.

There are so many things here, but the fact is she hasn't been straight.

She now no longer owns a home in her constituency, apparently.

She has a grace and favour home in central London, which the tax payer is paying double council tax on because she has said it's not her primary residence!

She has an expensive home by the seaside, not in her constituency.

She and her ex setting up a secure trust to ensure ongoing care for their disabled son - no problem with that at all so long as they obey the rules.

Everything else about this whole arrangement stinks.

For all those posters that believe this is a complex situation, having spent 2 minutes myself looking, I refer you to the HMRC website main page around higher rate stamp duty which specifically states:

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)

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

This is not complex, if you are remotely careful/ diligent.

If she was given wrong advice then she should go through, and show, the complaint and compensation from it.

We had to do that after getting terrible advice from a highly respected company that are supposed to specialise in setting up trusts for disabled people.

We ended up with a fine and interest on what we hadn't paid. When our complaint was accepted we were compensated to the amount of the fine and interest.

Nonsense. I think you probably don't vote Labour, so you have a go regardless of the merits.

Its common for houses to be in trust for a disabled child, especially if there has been a negligence claim which an article I read earlier certainly alluded to. Rightly so, as the property is then usually adapted for the use of the child for life, not the parents.

Nonsense to you back. I think you do vote Labour so will support no matter what they do.

If they breach client confidentiality in the way you suggest they'll be struck off too.

Not correct about my voting.

My guess is she survives this. The question is why she did it when it comes to ethics. She admits that she didn’t pay, but for ethics, it will be the motives that will be looked at.

Starmer will not sack her in any event. It’s going to be up to Angela, and I think she’s probably going to get a degree of public sympathy as well as the brickbats of hypocrisy

I mean it couldn't happen to a nicer person 🤭😜🥳💃💃💃🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳

She herself was adamant that if Nadim Zahawi had lied and misled the public over his tax affairs (that HMRC confirmed were due to incompetence rather than fraud), then he had to resign (he didn't need to in the end as Rishi Sunak sacked him first). I can't see how this is any different tbh, she has spent days denying that she dodged tax. And if weren't for the initial report in the Telegraph, she wouldn't be owning up to it now. Live by the sword and all that.

Which does not mean I don't have sympathy for her personal circumstances and trying to protect the future of her disabled child.

She's got mine my sympathy for sure.

Really vile comments by the Tory brigade.

Only from committed Labour supporters as on here.

I'm not a committed Labour supporter as I said.

I find the comments revolting, given the need to provide for a disabled child.

It will be inadvertently driven by her. They won’t proactively say anything due to client confidentiality laws but if she publicly accuses them of incompetence specifically with regard to her personal matters they are permitted to respond.

It won’t get to that of course because she knows what the outcome would be. It is now in her interest to keep the identity of any advisors secret. If they become public then she’s finished.

Yep

Very interesting, it appears from this that the family home is still considered to belong to the parent if a child is under 18. I thought that was the case as a close friend looked at putting her house into a trust to protect her daughter who has cerebral palsy and needs 24 hour care. The advice she had was not to do that but to set up a limited company to oversee her daughters care - no idea what they means in reality!

It will be inadvertently driven by her. They won’t proactively say anything due to client confidentiality laws but if she publicly accuses them of incompetence specifically with regard to her personal matters they are permitted to respond

They won't say anything because they got their advice wrong and the file will show that. Simple.

I am completely baffled that she didn’t obtain specialist tax advice in the first place, given her position. As I understand it, the solicitors she claimed were advising were not specialist in this issue. It sounds like she was hoping to avoid the extra £40 k and that is why she didn’t have this checked properly. It raises huge questions about her lack of judgment. She is not fit to be a housing minister on that basis alone. The fact that she has dogmatically called out her political opponents for tax avoidance or minimising makes her hypocritical, but the overall error of judgment is the most serious issue in my view.

What a massive hypocrites, like many other Labour politicians. She should resign. If a Tory MP had done this Labour would have hounded them until they went. As she says she does not have a home in her constituency then time for a by-election to choose someone who actually lives there?

Rayner should respect the child’s privacy and not use him to try and save her job.

No, the issue is that she has officially listed her constituency house as her main residence. You can't have 2 main residences, only 1. She should have sought specialist tax advice from the outset. That was her responsibility. As housing minister she has lost all credibility. This follows on from the council house debacle only a few months ago when no action by council tax was taken because of length of time it occured. She has to go her position is untenable. HMRC always insist individuals are responsible even if they received poor advice.

Its very generous or completely insane to include Rachel amongst the very best financial advisers 😂.

I’m assuming the lawyers advising her are the same ones advising the government. No wonder they make so many cock ups.