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?

If the Ethics Advisor is being utilised then she is going to have be very explicit about who gave her the tax 'advice' that she is claiming was incorrect. I find it almost impossible to believe a specialist tax advisor would have got this wrong. So, if she went ahead without consulting a specialist advisor (and only consulted one after the Telegraph reported on her being a tax dodger) then I can't see how that could not be found to be a serious breach of the ministerial code. But, yes, the process should to be allowed to be followed.

As for Kemi Badenoch, I guess she should suffer the same consequences that Rachel Reeves has for lying on her CV.....

Why do some posters say she has done nothing wrong? She herself says she has!

I wonder how often she is up in Aston. She seems to be based in London most of the time! She said she shared the care with her ex.

HMRC are a shambles. I did Probate for my late parent. I tried to do myself and planned to use the Helpline Service for any confusing questions. I was given two incorrect pieces of info that didnt even sound right. The 'advisor' told me to get legal advice in the end when I questioned there answer.

The question was around whether my late parents house could be included in the tax free allowance. (Residence Nil Rate Band). I told them it had been left to my siblings and myself but the complication was that it was sold 1 year before the death of my parent.

I ws shockingly told I couldnt claim it. That is NOT true!

As others say - try telling HMRC that 'they' told me to do it!

In the end I employed a solicitor to help with the forms. Even if I had excluded this allowance its not as though I could expect HMRC to call me and tell me I hadnt included it!

It's because she has been slagging of tax avoidance for years!!! Once again Labour have been exposed as a party of complete hypocrites!! 😆

you have no evidence that she was "rumbled" so clearly you just don't like her, is it because she is a working class northern woman and no your vision of a mum

I think she owned the house although in Trust - because her son was 17 years old and a child must be 18 to own property - even in a Trust.

Is there any type of person that is responsible for their own actions without using the excuse of class, sex, race etc? Can people just have simply done something wrong?

Just another two faced, lying champagne socialist.

Pulling out your disabled child to use as an excuse for tax avoidance is a cheap shot by a lying, tax dodging grifter.

Not surprising, Labour have shown themselves to be if anything more corrupt and disgusting than the previous lot.

I didn't think that was possible, but here we are.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Yes that is correct

I didn't say it was a fact, I said 'I think' that's what's happened.

And no, as a working class woman from an immigrant traditionally Labour voting family, I have no issues with working class northern women

ridiculous comment, did the Tories go above and beyond, remember Hunt and 7 flats! She took legal advice, period, what do you expect her to do, take 3 pieces of advice and choose one? I suspect your comment comes out of dislike

The Ethics Committee will want to know who gave her the advice of course.

They would be pretty stupid to cover anything up. If she HAS been given the wrong advice then that company will be for the high jump.

However if she didnt give the correct info to the advisor then that is a different matter and besides anyone who is looking at the tax position for the DPM is not going to be a Junior Clerk. It will be given to a Partner of the firm unless of course she relied on some verbal comfirmation which might well be the case and then of course we could get back to well what do you expect from someone who has no formal qualifications...

The issue here is not the trust.

The issue here is that she claims her primary residence is her constituency. She has sold her stake in that residence, she lives there, registers to vote there, uses it as an address for elections.

She neither owns or rents property in the constituency but claims it is her primary residence. That is questionable, but may be excusable.

When she chose to buy a property in Hove the idea that someone just said "this is your primary residence and you can save £40k" to her and she accepted it? No.

If you are a politician in a massive tax raising government and someone offers you a way to avoid £40k in tax you don't just go with it, you either get loads of the best opinions or you choose to pay the higher tax rate.

"I just did as I was told" doesn't wash she has a history of criticising others for property transactions, she is the SoS for Housing you don't get a "whoopsie pass" on avoiding £40k in Tax.

How do you know Shoosmiths gave incorrect advice? Do you have any evidence?

How she ever got to her position is frankly unbelievable. Labour must have been desperate.

I always remember her saying on a news report that Suffolk was suburban. The woman’s an idiot.

Anyone with common sense would have crossed all the 't's and dotted all the 'i's on this.

She does have common sense, so I think she tried to be too clever and came a cropper.

I'll tell you why I dislike her. Because I dislike voting for a party that was supposed to be different. That spent years in opposition telling us they would be different in government.
Only to find, pretty fucking immediately with this government and the Starmer freebies issue barely two months after taking office, that it's a case of
'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

Yes.

If you are the SoS for Housing and someone who has attacked others for their property transactions in the past, when someone says "don't worry you can avoid $40k in tax" you do not take the first bit of advice.

My husband works for HMRC, there is an entire HMRC department dedicated to dealing with HMRC employees tax affairs. We wanted to set up a limited company to reduce our tax liability on a second property, our accountant advised us on options but told us to seek advance assurance from HMRC that they were happy with the plan. There is no way that Angela Rayner, or any MP doesn’t have access to the same advice. How can people defend her when she has form for this behaviour only very recently. She got away with it then and it emboldened her to do it again.

She hasn't admitted to breaking the rules for goodness sake.

She bought a property and did what any of us would do - employed a conveyancing solicitor to handle the sale, part of which includes advising their client how much stamp duty to pay.

When it was suggested that she had not paid the right amount she engaged further advice which confirmed she had underpaid and will now pay the money owed.

There are no rules which say MPs should do something other than employ a conveyancing solicitor when purchasing a property, there are no rules which say they should always get a second opinion about tax matters even after consulting a relevant expert and there are certainly no rules which say that she should be an expert in every facet of government policy - even more so when it is set by a department that is not theirs.

She didn't break the rules of the court by revealing the details of the trust which were protected by a court order until that order was lifted (even though doing so would have been beneficial to her and not doing so has caused her more problems).

Unless her conveyancing solicitor comes forward and says that she misrepresented the details of the trust to them or the written outline of what stamp duty is owed is different to what she paid, I am really struggling to understand which rule you think she broke?

As far as I can tell - her solicitor made a mistake, she will now correct that mistake by paying what is owed.

We can give her the benefit of the doubt and say she "tried to be too clever" I suppose. If we weren't being cynical (realistic about the type of person she is as shown by the NYC freebies).

I've googled stamp duty on a second home when you don’t own the house you live in within the last couple of years . I managed to find the right information about tax being payable . The website provided by HMRC actually provides really good information - you just need to find it and understand it .I think I even might have seen the question raised on here before . I would have thought that there is enough info available online to set alarm bells ringing and for the Deputy PM to have checked properly in light of her own circumstances … not just with a conveyancer ! It doesn’t look good - it just makes her look dishonest or foolish - neither of which quality is one we need in an MP .

Why would you blame the advisors? Do you know who advised her, it looks reputable.

Or she put the house in trust for her disabled child. That’s not an uncommon thing to do. We were advised by a lawyer that we might want to consider that. We chose not to.

I expect you would say the same thing if it was, say, Boris that had avoided tens of thousands of tax, didn't fess up until caught out by the Telegraph and then had to admit he had broken the rules.

Are we allowed to trust our government behaves within the spirit of the laws they set? I suppose not these days.

HMRC would not allow you the benefit of the doubt that you allow Angela Raynor.