Rayner Has Resigned

[usernamealreadytaken]

AIBU to say it isn't unexpected, or a surprise?

So her party is proposing to increase first home tax if it values 500k or above, basically to use that money in public services while the deputy head of the same party is trying to avoid paying full tax on her second property.

They want to tax public more but not happy to pay their share. This is serious especially when she was the deputy Prime Minister. Can we trust such politicians and leaders to do anything decent for the people of the country?

Thank you

It's really not simple. I'm a chartered tax advisor specialising in trusts.

It heavily depends on the type of trust and the detail in the trust deed.

The press makes it sound simple (as they do with all kinds of tax because it's more sensationalist) as does the face of HMRC's website which is designed to provide basic, first line guidance. It should in no way be taken as gospel nor as actual tax advice, because that's how you'll find yourself in similar situations paying the wrong amount of tax.

This is JUST not comparable! It's completely lawful to operate through a limited company. IR35 rules ensure that there is no loophole for avoiding tax. Could not believe the Guardian trying to distract us with this non-story. Disgusting rag of a paper.

She was told to get specialist advice - Sir Laurie put it in his report:

The advice received was “qualified by the acknowledgement that it did not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained.”

She chose not to do that, it was an active choice which, at best, is shockingly naive for a senior minister.

The issue isn't that Left leaning parties have to have higher standards. It's that they, themselves, claim to have higher standards. And they are then, inevitably, found wanting. And both the people who vote for them, and those who vote against them, find that impossible to forgive. And with good reason.

I wrote in the previous thread, after the Major government was brought down by Cash for Questions and assorted 'Tory Sleaze', Major's response was to actually try to do something about the integrity of those in public life by establishing the Committee on Standards in Public Life - from where we get the Nolan Principles.
Alan Clark is quoted as saying 'The thing is, at least you know where you are with the sleazy Tories' - meaning, a Labour government will be exactly the same, it's just they will never admit to it. He was right.

She hasn't been found to have lied. She was found to have been honest but should have followed advice to speak to a trust specialist. She should have absolutely done that, but it wasn't a scheme to dodge tax, she sought advice and did what they said, though she didn't follow the qualification added, so it was a failure to seek specialist advice. Not as innocent as some hoped and not guilty enough for others, so people will make their own facts up.

This is what gets on my nerves, nobody is prepared to read and digest and give a balanced opinion any more. It's so bloody infuriating, it's like reason has gone out the window entirely.

It always is.

Is there anyone better who could replace him?

she made it worse by digging down on her lies and blaming others

shows that if you flame the politics of envy you should make damn sure you are squeaky clean in your own finances

god help us all until this lot are out.

Wow- words fail me.

If you are a politician and especially if you are in the Government, then you should be very transparent about any tax affairs or otherwise.
By this, I mean you technically have to be 'pure' and seen as such so nothing can later be revealed that would be detrimental.
Of course finding such people may be a lot harder, I guess.

That makes it worse then - she definitely should have got advise then!

Couldn’t agree more.
I take umbrage with people who think any criticism of Rayner is because they are uneducated morons who fall for right wing propaganda. I admire Angela Rayner in making something of her life amidst adversity and challenge. I feel great sympathy for her as a mother in terms of what happened to one of her children as a baby. Those two sentiments can be reconciled with a disappointment in how she has behaved and tried to scapegoat others to try and save her own arse.

I think it does create a potentially expensive precedent for HMRC to use that people should have formal tax advice on stamp duty transactions rather than relaying on the conveyancer as most of us do.

Who would you like in power? God help us if the grifters that comprise reform and got us into this mess through Brexit replace the present govt.

What she did is 100% unethical.

Glad she was found out.

but very few people have got anything remotely complicated in their tax affairs. Why would they need advice?

She absolutely should have and it is shocking she didn't.

But the portrayal of this being a straightforward, clear cut transaction for tax purposes is very frustrating to me as a tax professional. I would challenge anyone to go and read some of the legislation involved without their brain shutting down.

Personally I detest SDLT and will always refer it to my specialist colleagues because it's a total bastard with many caveats and in some cases there's no clear answer.

Then you aren't talking about the report today, because there were no questions of her ethics in there.

Disgusting that you are trying to use her class and gender as an excuse for this. There is no excuse. It's obvious she should have paid tax at the higher rate of the second property and, given her position as frigging deputy PM and housing minister, she should have been all over this. Even if there WAS a legal loophole, it would still be completely unethical to switch addresses just before the sale so that she can pay the lower rate given her/Labour's position on taxing second homes and her past comments about others doing similar. The hypocrisy is just breaktaking.

On a cheerier note, Rayner hasn’t done Reeves any favours….

Rach will have to pivot back to the welfare budget for cuts, because I struggle to see how she will be able to go after property now…

Anyway, don't feel too sorry for her, she'll be back in no time. They always are. Starmer has already stated she 'will remain a major figure in the party'.

What are you saying, that there are shades of grey??!!!!

Yes but the basic premise is still that it was very easy to find the prima facie position that she owed the tax. So that starting position was tax was payable not that it wasn’t..

the advice she needed was whether not she didn’t have to pay it rather than she did.