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?

There's no evidence for that.

Its common for houses to be in trust for a disabled child,

I didn’t know this.

So who is the legal advisor I wonder?

I wouldnt have thought she would be filling in tax forms personally so who did?

She has brought a flat in Hove for £800K which is a hefty amount to pay and did she not think buying out of her constinency wasnt going to be questioned?

I have also heard she is looking for a safer seat next time just in case!

Useful. So this is basic stuff for a lawyer working in this area. I would expect her to have a settlement statement from her conveyancing solicitor. That will make clear how much stamp duty the solicitor told her to pay. I wonder how much documentation, with redactions, she will release, if any, to evidence what she is saying.

Using the phrase ‘Trust law is complicated’ is a red herring in this case. A less charitable person would say that Rayner is trying to present it as complicated to deflect blame. But this appears to be a very simple case. The beneficiaries of the trust are children, and the law in this country is that under 18s can’t own property. So it’s a well established fact that in the case of a Trust of this type involving property or land the parents are considered to be owners.

Rayners conveyancer will have asked her if she owned or had an interest in any other property. Either she said no, and property type 1 was selected on the SDLT1, or she said yes and the conveyancer filled in the wrong box. If she said no she either doesn’t understand that children can’t own property, or doesn’t understand the structure of the Trust of which she seems to be a Trustee. If it’s the conveyancers fault I’m sure all will become clear.

It’s a pretty serious accusation to say they got it wrong. I’m with the pp I doubt it. When someone will say anything to justify something (dc included) it applies to everything.

Agree. It stinks of the old “claim for a new bath plug, claim for a new duck house , kerchingggg “ that MPs were rightly castigated for in the past. Sounds as though some of them have just got a little bit cannier and smarter.

I get the impression she was trying to game the system for her own personal gain and has now been found it. She was welling up on Sky earlier because she has been found out. She is not that bright. Bit like Reeves who was in a state in the HoC a few weeks ago. Another person who has been found out.

I cannot stand either of them but its a real shame it happens to be two women who are completely useless. Do as I say - not what I do.

The facts that we know don’t support that view at all. I am sure the Trusts lawyers will have acted correctly for the Trust - this is bread and butter. But even if not, they have no liability to Rayner for a residential purchase in her own name. I expect her conveyancing lawyer will have acted correctly on the information they were given. The question is, did Rayner understand what the conveyancing solicitors were asking.

Just a reminder that, less than 18 months ago, she was all over the press for an HMRC investigation over the sale of her previous home that she designated as her main residence.

You would have thought you would make sure you were squeaky clean after that!

Made a mistake did she? Aye, and if she thinks we believe that then I have some magic beans to sell her. Thought and hoped she'd get away with it more like.

She sold it to her disabled son's trust fund, there are rules about selling/giving houses to children so that you can't gain a tax advantage, usually that you give up your interest in it completely which she doesn't seem to have done, she's still living there and I very much doubt she's paying the trust fund market rate rent. It sounds like a deliberate tax dodge or at least pushing the boundaries, and since she was advised by a wealth management mob, I would bet she knew it was risky but didn't think anyone would find out. It should also be sold at market rate or you run into all sorts of capital gains/losses rules. If it was some ordinary person maybe they didn't know, but she had lots of expensive advice, went for a loophole of some sort and is now making excuses.

She has to have her name on the deeds of the family home because of the trust and the child for whose benefit it has been set up being under 18.

Starmer and his team all seem to be incredibly poor communicators & to lack basic political awareness.

She is the housing minister and always a favourite target of the right wing media.

So of course her purchase of a new home was always going to be scrutinised by the media & she should have been extra careful about her property transactions.

Now even as she ends up being cleared, the perception is that she is being disingenuous, incompetent for apparently not being able to get sound legal advice & she is causing negative publicity for the government.

Frankly Starmer needs to show some leadership & sack her & Reeves & replace them with people who are up to the job.

Surely the trust fund would have it's name on the deeds? The trust fund should be a totally separate entity, holding assets for the child. But it can take a while for land registry to update information.

👏👏👏😅😅😅😅😅😅

She's done for unfortunately. She's been too gobby in the past criticising tax avoidance by the Conservatives. She had a lot to say about Mrs Rishi who wasn't in government and had also not done anything technically illegal. Ange is in government so should be held to the highest standards. She's lost all moral standing and so will be unable to comment on issues of tax avoidance without looking like a rank hypocrite.

So on the basis Keir is not long for PM and Angela Raynor is now out, who will be the next leader? Wes Streeting?

Starmer and his team all seem to be incredibly poor communicators & to lack basic political awareness.

She is the housing minister and always a favourite target of the right wing media.

So of course her purchase of a new home was always going to be scrutinised by the media & she should have been extra careful about her property transactions.

Now even as she ends up being cleared, the perception is that she is being disingenuous, incompetent for apparently not being able to get sound legal advice & she is causing negative publicity for the government.

Frankly Starmer needs to show some leadership & sack her & Reeves & replace them with people who are up to the job.

I did listen to her interview with Beth Rigby. We had a lip tremble, think of the children and of couse I was misinformed.

Its a shame that Beth didnt ask whether she was going to take action against the company giving the orginal advice. She now says that after taking expert legal advice it seems that she does owe the money.

Surely she doesnt take us as idiots. She is Housing Minister. She will already have access to expert legal advice. Who on earth was she going to if not the experts in the first place. It not as though any Ministers need to 'Google' a good financial advisor or ask friends for a recommendation (just like the rest of us!)

If not, why not? If I was in such a high profile role i would be employing the best advisers. It's just unbelievable that theyve got it wrong if what she is saying is true.

Lack of integrity aside (which is a huge issue), it does bring into question her competence and whether she's fit for office, given that she lacks even the most basic critical thinking skills.

She is exactly the same as every other person who tries to find ways to avoid paying more tax. Plenty of them will have disabled family members and divorces going on. The difference is she is a labour politician who is very vocal on getting people to pay lots of tax and keen to tax them even more. Like most on the left, they want other people’s money to pay for stuff, not their own.

My understanding, from what I have read today, is that the names of trustees of the Trust have to go on the deeds - Angela, husband and solicitor.

I don't understand why people think that just because someone is in Government that they have 'access to the best tax experts in the country'.

Civil servants do not and will not give personal advice to MPs. It is not their job to do so. Tax laws are complicated and no-one understands every facet of them inside out whether they are PM, Chancellor or heading up HMRC - like law there are specialists in different areas.

Someone mentioned Rachel Reeves could have advised her - Rachel Reeves is not a tax expert - her background is national and international monetary policy 🙄

Angela Raynor would have had access to exactly the same advice as anyone else who can commission an accountant or tax specialist to advise.

If she was incorrectly advised (which I'm sure HMRC will investigate) then the consequences of that are between her and her advisors - likely some kind of compensation from their professional insurance and possibly an ICA or CIOT censure.

Another poster said that if she did have incorrect advice then she should sue and publicly name the advisor.

I really hope that doesn't happen - anyone, including tax experts, can make a mistake and no-one who has chosen a career that is not in the public spotlight should be publicly flogged just because that mistake is being used by the right wing press to hound an MP for nothing more than ideological reasons.

Those of you who are being so vocal about how terrible it is that Raynor lied - how do you feel about Kemi Badenoch's blatent lie about being offered a partial scholership to pre-med at Stanford at the age of 16?

Especially given that the accusations against Raynor are not proven, she has publically asked to be investigated by HMRC and agreed to make any reparations they determine are needed whereas Badenoch has been proven to have lied because Stamford have confirmed they don't have a pre-med course, don't offer partial scholarships and only offer medicine courses to existing students.

Unproven accusations vs proven lies? Or is it still OK for those on the right to lie and cheat while those on the left need to be saints!

FFS - when the hell will this personalisation and polarisation of politics end so that those we elect to run the bloody country can get on with it.

Children are being irreparably harmed by poverty, lack of mental health services and an utterly shite education system, women's rights are being slowly eroded day by day, no-one is getting good health care, our infrastructure is crumbling and public services are on their knees.

We have to stop doing this and push back against those who are using Raynor, manufactured immigration crisis and xenophobia disguised as racism to whip up the public and distract from the real issues while they push the country, with increasing speed, to the levels of capitalism and individualism which benefits no-one but themselves.

We have a huge housing crisis and the Secretary for Housing, Levelling Up and Communities is having to spend time dealing with constant press attacks, even though she has already put the wheels in motion to check whether a mistake has been made and agreed to fix them if they have.

If she is found to have purposely dodged tax and subsequently lied about it in the last few days, then yes, she should absolutely resign - but until the HMRC investigation is complete, can we please leave her alone to do her job!

With all her busy life it takes 2min to google the rules and see it clearly, as PP did earlier. HMRC guidance about children/trust/ownership is very clear.
But with no GCSEs...