Angela Rayner's tax affairs

[Ihateboris]

I was a few days late submitting my Tax Return due to being in hospital last year and as result I was charged £100 late filing penalty.

AIBU to think that Angela Rayner should have to pay interest and penalties for underpayment of Stamp Duty. This makes me so fucking angry.

I have to say that when DH and I chose where we lived, the priorities were

• Can we afford it
• Can non driving DH get to his job? (moving jobs not an option for lots of reasons)
• Can I commute to work by car from here
• Are the schools OK

Political affiliation didn't come into it. This was East Anglia, where you hit true blue Toryland the moment you leave any city.

Exactly. Mine were:

Close to new job
Close to elderly parents
Affordable
Good train to London

I’ve been trying to work out how far and where I’d have to move not to be in Toryland and ironically I couldn’t afford to live there.

Thanks for the compliment!

But if you re going to make statements that Labour paid for her specialist tax advice, then at least have the honesty to back it up with some facts... fairly basic stuff in a discussion i'd have thought.

Or have we entered the world of "Alternative Facts" on MN ?

Some people don't understand Hitchens' Razor.

Gosh, these tiresome demands for LINKS and FACTS. You could just check yourself.

But since you seem incapable, here is a Times link - if you don't have a subscription you won't be able to read it, but frankly, that's not my problem,

www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/angela-rayner-tax-lawyer-labour-dfvxd69gh

I think that relates to extraordinary or baseless claims. I really don't think me saying that the Times ran an article about Angela Rayner is an extraordinary or baseless claim.

But I'm sure as a member of the Angela Rayner fan club, along with a few other posters on here, you will do your utmost to convince me it is.

As I’m a Times subscriber, this is what it says:

Labour covered the cost of a specialist tax lawyer hired to look into Angela Rayner’s finances in the lead-up to her resignation as deputy prime minister last year.

A leading barrister was asked to examine whether she underpaid stamp duty. Jonathan Peacock KC spent up to five days examining Rayner’s finances, providing a draft and final legal advice about the purchase of a £700,000 flat in Hove.

It can be revealed that the expense was paid for by party headquarters. One expert said that Peacock’s advice could have cost tens of thousands of pounds.

Senior Labour sources seized upon the revelation, claiming it was a poor use of funds when the party was losing out on fundraising and dealing with a £3.8 million deficit after the general election. Their attacks are a sign that critics of Rayner are seeking to tarnish her reputation in anticipation of a possible leadership challenge in May.

I was talking more about this magic letter from Rayner 's lawyers that a poster on here claims exists. That needs substantiated.

I tend to want verification of things I see in the media. All media. That's healthy skepticism. What's wrong with that?

I didn't mention a magic letter. Maybe make your posts clearer so the poster who did make that claim can provide the verification you are seeking.

It is all rather self important now. MN posts being “media”. Official newspapers have to fact check.

Go read about the detail on Dan Neidle’s website. For example (and I am quoting directly), “Mr Aaronson says that, once he was able to demonstrate the facts to HMRC, they agreed. It appears that this was not a simple case with one “smoking gun”, but a fairly complex chain of correspondence”.

Mr Aaronson acting on behalf of AR demonstrated some facts to HMRC.
Mr Aaronson being the second barrister.

“Mr Aaronson is an eminent KC with an excellent reputation; however, he was acting for Ms Rayner, and spoke to us with her permission. Ms Rayner’s team is not providing the underlying documentation (we asked; they are not willing to).”

I mean if Jonathan Peacock KC spent a few days and they are complaining about cost. However, Aaranson spent many months… inference required as to total cost of lawyers!

If we're talking about substantiating claims, would @Alexandra2001 like to substantiate her claim that:

I understood the initial firm she contacted, had a tax division and she paid for that herself.
She also paid for further specialist advice too.

Meta AI says she paid for it herself, linking to a Guardian Article, however, that article doesn't mention who financed the advice, however she did pay for the first "advice" out her conveyancing costs.

...and neither you or anyone else can say for sure who paid for what or how much.

Angela Rayner paid for her own tax and legal advice out of her own pocket after media scrutiny began in 2024 and 2025 regarding the stamp duty on her Hove property
When she first purchased the property in East Sussex, she did not hire a specialist tax expert, instead relying on general legal and conveyancing advice After questions were raised in the press regarding her stamp duty liability, she instructed a leading tax counsel—at her own expense—to review her arrangements

Also from the Times article;

Rayner’s allies said the decision to hire Peacock was not taken by her. They said she requested legal advice from the party and senior officials proposed using Peacock’s services. The advice was therefore commissioned by Labour, rather than Rayner herself.

Mr Aranson was consulted, and then instructed, as they sought a second opinion.

Commissioned isn’t the same thing as paid for. Just saying.

Perhaps if Angela Rayner runs for the Labour leadership/PM job someone might ask her.

Personally I’d rather they asked her about her policies and vision. I’m weird like that.

I think she sometimes wears glasses.

She will need them to read the fine print next time.