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?

The Shoosmiths statement simply says they have not acted for Rayner for some years, she is not a client and they did not advise on her property purchase. So I think they are confident they are in the clear.

As per my PPs I’m pointing out that its easy to make an honest mistake when answering questions in this area (as the non expert client) which would not be apparent to the solicitor drawing up the trust details, especially if the person asking the questions is a conveyancer from another firm entirely uninvolved in the trust set up.

I have said nothing about “bad advice” so not clear which part of my post this comment refers to.

If as pp indicates she made an ‘honest mistake’ and answered incorrectly then the I got bad advice part is a lie.

Ha ha also gives the wrong rate of duty... but of course you don't even know her tax situation do you, just guessed it.

HMRC accept genuine errors, esp where the error is reported to them.

No you haven’t, Rayner has she cited bad advice as the excuse. That’s the problem.

She herself has said she was given wrong advice. By whom, did they know the full story or did she leave bits out because she didnt see them as 'relevant'.

Funny if she left them out because she actually then benefitted from not paying £40k additional SD.

She needs to be very very clean on her tax affairs. She has pulled others up on other tax issues. Now she has come unstuck.

She can have children galore, marry, divorce, live in different locations, reside with someone off and on, set up trusts to protect your assets for your son BUT that makes your life rather complicated and then if you are DPM you need to take great care that nothing comes back to bite you.

Sorry, but I work with people in the areas of estate planning including trusts and law. You do not take short cuts or get sloppy in these areas, especially when you are high profile and/or when there is some complexity.

Its just not done.

We are a mix of political persuasions in the office,
and all of us find Rayners situation incredible.

In any event, the enquiry will determine the outcome.

Exactly. Constantly blurring the Trust with her property purchase is a deliberate strategy to make it seem complicated and so not her fault. Doing so is, in my view, her digging a deeper hole, though as she’s reacting to not in control of the situation I don’t think she realises that.

She runs the very real risk of being portrayed as someone who doesn’t understand her duties as a Trustee, in which case the unjustified criticism that she sold her part of the house to the Trust for her son’s future stability could be perceived as her trying to take advantage.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t believe that’s the case. But the deliberate confusion she is creating to save her skin now leaves her wide open to that criticism IMO.

The graffiti on her house is a separate issue. It’s wrong, very wrong - but does not deflect (as much as certain posters wish it would) from the core matter of whether she knew or suspected she was pulling some jiggery-pokery on the tax.

There’s also the hypocrisy - don’t roar about others when your own snout is firmly in the trough.

As for her supporters saying she’s being victimised because she’s working class - say what? That lets a lot of people off the hook for any wrongdoings!

Citing the disabled son… I’m sure supporters extended the same sympathy to David Cameron… oh, wait a minute I remember posters being rather vile when his ds died because the father was only a Tory f**r and it didn’t matter.

Imagine being the Housing minister and not knowing that property taxes can be complex particularly after going through the process of setting up a trust for your child that involves property.

Also imagine being a tax expert advising the housing minister on property tax. You'd think they'd try to be thorough and not miss anything.

You have misunderstood. The post refers to political colour, not skin colour. Politicians have been targeted as we all know. AR was targeted by way of vandalism. It’s a spectrum. Vandalism of property at one end, taking someone’s life at the other. It’s still targeting someone whichever way you look at it. It’s a question of degrees.

The fact she hasn’t resigned tells you everything you need to know about her morals

Shes admitted ‘an error’

To a person with any principles at all, whether the mistake was intentional or not, they would step back so as to not distract from ‘the good work of the party and government’

She hasn’t apologised, she hasn’t said exactly what’s she’s doing to rectify the ‘mistake’, she hasn’t resigned.

She has blamed someone else. She has tried to play the victim. She has used her disabled son.

She is not a good person.

I too find Rayner's situation incredible now I know that expert advice must have been available to her. She herself has said many times that her personal circumstances are complicated. The only way she could be exonerated is if she can show documentary evidence that she accurately explained the Ashton property and trust situation, and that the adviser nonetheless said that the lower rate of SDLT was due. This seems highly unlikely.

She hasn’t apologised
She has.

she hasn’t said exactly what’s she’s doing to rectify the ‘mistake’
She has.

she hasn’t resigned
She’s explained that she’s been strongly discouraged from doing so despite having considered it.

Agree mostly but she has said she’s referred herself to the sleaze people. Only because the press have hounded her into this position though.

And to rectify the mistake, she has said she’ll repay the money 😂 which isn’t really a flex.
And you’re right, she certainly does not come across well.

I'm not sure she has adequately explained how she apparently told two different authorities that two different properties were her first home.

She did try to blame others. Very low behaviour.

If the enquiry finds she acted improperly, and she consequently resigns or is forced out by Starmer, who do you believe will be to blame?

Of course she needs to pay the extra SD - its not optional. Where its going to come from is a different matter as she says she has used her life savings already.

Its a lot of money to find but if she survives she will have to or she will have to sell the flat.

This would never have come out unless the Telegraph dug into this more deeply.

She should have recognised having potentially 3 houses to live in is not a good look.

And no,its nothing to do with her being working class, or a women.

This is what I find somewhat perplexing as well.

She acted in a personal capacity when she bought the flat in Brighton - she could not access lawyers who work for the state - that would be an abuse of power. She had the same access to legal advice as we all have - not more!

Don’t be naive. She has more personal wealth than a lot of ordinary folk, and she can therefore access a high quality lawyer for advice. And perhaps access second opinions also.

Read the posts re PEP