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.

Corporations, individuals, and trustees may file amended CT600s, SA100s, or SA900s (tax returns as applicable) up to 12 months from submission of their initial return without penalty.

HMRC may charge late payment interest on underpaid tax that arises as a result, but they won't issue a penalty for an amended return as long as it is within the 12 month window.

Individuals and trusts (I'm less knowledgeable for companies) can file amended returns even further back using the voluntary disclosure facility. In this case, HMRC may well issue penalties but they do not always, it does depend on the circumstances.

That’s what I mean. As anything with HMRC, all that matters is how aggressive and knowledgable you or your advisors are as go whether you are penalised. That’s what the public should be aware of, not desperate for one member of the public to be fined when HMRC have decided not to.

Eh? What do you mean? When was the last time you paid the wrong tax and negotiated the outcome with HMRC?

Again, that is your opinion. And that is all it is. There's far better talent in the Conservative Party.

3 years ago.

Long story but HMRC were professional, efficient and listened.

We’re talking about corporations negotiating.

Well, you did, months to get your SA return in, the £100 fine is very well known about, so unless you were in hospital for 8 or 9 months, then you ve no excuse.

HMRC do allow for genuine mistakes, esp if the mistake/error is then notified to HMRC by the tax payer.

You don't need to be aggressive. I have never felt the need to be aggressive in any of my dealings with HMRC and I have argued with them over quite a bit!

Whether you are penalised or not rests entirely on the facts of the matter at hand. Not how difficult you're making life for them.

You can also be as knowledgeable as you like but if you're in the wrong you'll still be penalised...

There are lots of grey areas in tax and I would expect most people who have been working in the area a long time would’ve had disputes with them.

and yes, you sometimes need aggression. We are currently sponsoring sector level lobbying for an exemption to a gift aiding technicality. Plenty of advisers can out smart HMRC, that’s how you get what you need.

im obvious not talking about someone phoning up asking for an extension on their self assessment.

As anything with HMRC, all that matters is how aggressive and knowledgable you or your advisors are as go whether you are penalised.

I wanted to bring some balance

Agree… and perhaps the newspaper as well!

it’s a disgrace, on two separate occasions she was told to get legal advice; she did not but somehow this was reasonable and not careless?

for a normal member of the public there would be fines and interest.

at the best this is special treatment and at worse, corruption.

OP you have my sympathy for being on the receiving end of the usual sledgehammer to crack a nut treatment. We don’t all get the white glove handling like Angela!

We don't know AR has paid the £40k she owed for tax. We don't know sh has not had a fine. HMRC won't confirm it meaning she could be lying. She might have had a fine and we will never know. She had a similar issue around council tax non payment years before so there is a pattern there. Whether she paid to take expert tax advice was down to her, she was advised to buy didn't.

No requirement by HMRC for an individual to get expert advice or any advice, didn't she also go to Govt tax experts in house?

She amended the info given to HMRC, it would be usual for no fine to be issued.

Yes you re right, there is a pattern, Labour Women get scrutinised to the nth degree... to the extent that things get made up.

Thank you. This appears to have turned into me being given a good telling off for not submitting my Tax Return in a timely manner. Having suffered a severe nervous breakdown, unfortunately life admin was overlooked. I did pay the fine but I'm going to try to get it repaid.

Thank you again. I just wish people would stick to the actual subject and not digress to something else. Oh well.

Go and have a read of the European or US papers, and see how many articles there are on Angela Rayner's tax error.

You were the one who bought in your own situation, therefore inviting comment on it.

Its utterly ridiculous for anyone to suggest HMRC is corrupt over the AR issue.

Hers was a complex issue, they accept she made a genuine mistake as have i on 2 separate SA returns, both occasions HMRC just asked for the additional monies owed.

Again, you are promoting the idea that divorcing parents of a disabled child should pay stamp duty on their new home in a way that divorcing parents of able bodied children rarely do.

Again I suggest separate the politics from the policy - I would say some transitional model is needed.

Your desperation to promote Rayner as a deliberate tax dodger is a quite separate issue. Lets look at Hunt who “forgot” to pay in excess of 100k stamp duty when flipping properties in a far less complex situation and I believe it overlapped with his job as Chancellor. Funny how little attention that has received here.

I was more discussing the ‘column inch’ versus the actual tax liability.
My point is that certain political figures are targeted while others get a comparably easy ride.

You haven’t answered the point. Precisely because it was complex, she was advised on two separate occasions she should get legal advice. She did not do so and came to her own conclusion, on a complex matter, that tax was not due. Despite this, HMRC has decided that she was not careless but acted with reasonable care. It is mystifying, and I struggle to find any justification for their decision other to give her special treatment that an ordinary member of the public wouldn’t have received.

Polanski has never been in serious contention as a politician until recently - hence of course scrutiny is playing catch up and dodgy claims or poorly thought out policies are going to attract scrutiny as Reform have found over the past year. The Greens are yet to go through their backlog of dodgy councillors and spokespeople so its not surprising if they appear a lot in the press.

Hunt on the other had - I was mystified about the minimal coverage. Even though he was no longer a significant political figure he had been in Cabinet for most of the 14 years and will presumably be bumped up at some point.

Women always get more scrutiny and as a working class woman in Labour Rayner gets more than her share and always has done.

This. HMRC don't hammer people where there is complexity, and where there is no evidence of deliberate misbehaviour. It's easy enough to google this.

In other words, she's been treated exactly the same as you or I probably would be. Which I think is exactly right.

Don't let that get in the way of a good story though.

In other news, I'm entirely comfortable with Farage taking £5m bribes from shady businesspeople. Nothing to see there.

Angela Rayner was advised by 2 different firms on 2 different occasions to seek more specialised advice re the tax situation.
She chose not to.
Whether you believe she has received special treatment from HMRC or not she's shown her judgement is flawed - she thought she knew best.
It's no good saying "but these are very complicated tax issues". Of course they are,and that's exactly why she should have taken the advice given and engaged a specialist.

I have addressed that in an earlier post, HMRC do not require an individual to seek expert tax advice....

The reason being is that if that advice is wrong, who do HMRC go to get the extra tax from? who is liable.... which firm would agree to give advice to an individual ie a lay person, shd they be wrong?

Conveyancing solicitors are all a reasonable person would expect to consult on this.

Different from corporations, companies etc.

@Araminta1003 it sounds like the trust set up for the disabled son owned 50% of the property which had been adapted to meet his needs. His dad and his mum owned 25% each and as they were separated/divorced had a nesting arrangement.

Obviously it would have been better for the trust or ex to buy out ARs share before she bought another property and remove her from the deeds but maybe this was not financially possible or was prohibited by the terms of the trust or the parties were not willing and AR bought another property whilst legally remaining on the deeds of a property 50% owned by trust and 25% owned by her ex.

This is an unusual and complex circumstance due to specific circumstances of lifelong disability of your child and not the tax dodge of a grifter.

AR is crucified but true tax dodgers get a free pass from the right wing press if they are already wealthy - imagine if AR had received a £5m gift! If it’s a personal rather than party gift her son would have a secure home for life and she would have plenty left over for a new home plus security to stop the nasty grafity plus a couple of million for extras.