| Another nail in the coffin 11:40 - Sep 3 with 3359 views | DJR |
and further evidence of ineptitude on the part of individuals in the government.
There has also been some suggestion that the emergence of this story is the result of briefing by factions in the government who see Rayner as a threat to Starmer.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/03/angela-rayner-admits-underpayin
"Angela Rayner admits underpaying stamp duty on £800,000 seaside flat" [Post edited 3 Sep 11:41]
|  | | |  |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:11 - Sep 3 with 833 views | BloomBlue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 19:04 - Sep 3 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s routine wealth management stuff, so yes agreed; it’d be very surprising that this wasn’t known at the time the trust was set up. She could be innocent of tax evasion and just dopey I suppose. She doesn’t strike me as dopey though. |
Trusts are always complex, but that's no excuse. Professional legal people are paid lots of money for advice, she should sue them.
But like everyone in this country, ultimately she's response for her own tax return, including stamp duty.
Trust are designed to reduce inheritance tax, although many people don't view it as reduce, rather avoid. Rayner should be pushing for abolishing trusts. |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:18 - Sep 3 with 823 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:11 - Sep 3 by BloomBlue |
Trusts are always complex, but that's no excuse. Professional legal people are paid lots of money for advice, she should sue them.
But like everyone in this country, ultimately she's response for her own tax return, including stamp duty.
Trust are designed to reduce inheritance tax, although many people don't view it as reduce, rather avoid. Rayner should be pushing for abolishing trusts. |
All sorts of other reasons and types of trusts.
And conveyancers aren't trust and tax specialists. Thast the reality.
If you reasonably rely on properly taken advice, its really not your fault.
You will have made plenty of mistakes in your time, it will be a degree of luck which means none has ever gone on to become a big issue (assuming that is the case). |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:44 - Sep 3 with 791 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Another nail in the coffin on 12:17 - Sep 3 by giant_stow |
i get your general point about a labour mp buying a second home, but do we know why she bought this one? Doesn't her fella live down there? Or is it just an investment soon to be seen on Airbandb? |
She sold the stake in her previous one to her son' trust. So this is her only property |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 22:03 - Sep 3 with 761 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:44 - Sep 3 by reusersfreekicks |
She sold the stake in her previous one to her son' trust. So this is her only property |
Love it when people down vote facts. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 22:25 - Sep 3 with 719 views | GlasgowBlue |
I’m a big admirer of Angela Rayner. She’s a real person who went into politics for the right reasons and, ill advised “Tory Scum” comments aside, she is somebody who is prepared to work with other politicians from all sides of the political divide.
It’s right that she has referred herself to the regulator who will come to the correct decision based on all the facts that they will have to hand.
Not much more to add other than to say that UK politics needs more people like Angela Rayner, regardless of which political party they belong to. So for that reason I hope that it’s found she has done nothing wrong Intentionally. |  |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin on 22:27 - Sep 3 with 710 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Another nail in the coffin on 22:03 - Sep 3 by redrickstuhaart |
Love it when people down vote facts. |
It's not people, it's Bluebudgie.
Nuff said [Post edited 3 Sep 23:06]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 07:09 - Sep 4 with 628 views | Churchman |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:18 - Sep 3 by redrickstuhaart |
All sorts of other reasons and types of trusts.
And conveyancers aren't trust and tax specialists. Thast the reality.
If you reasonably rely on properly taken advice, its really not your fault.
You will have made plenty of mistakes in your time, it will be a degree of luck which means none has ever gone on to become a big issue (assuming that is the case). |
I think it’s irrelevant whether an action is directly Rayner’s fault or not when it comes to her affairs. She is accountable. Simple as that.
Lack of accountability and blaming others, especially those down the food chain that cannot answer back, seems to be a first port of call for politicians and this has been for decades. The last one to put his hand up that I can recall is Lord Carrington who resigned over the failure to foresee the Falklands invasion in 1982. |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 07:50 - Sep 4 with 580 views | textbackup |
| Another nail in the coffin on 13:44 - Sep 3 by CastroSito |
That she's not a tax expert and paid someone who, supposedly, was? |
In which case there must be evidence that she can produce to show all the communication between her and them?
FWIW I don’t care if she’s tried to pull a fast one, we’d all happily pay less tax if we thought we could get away with it |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another nail in the coffin on 08:18 - Sep 4 with 542 views | soupytwist |
| Another nail in the coffin on 17:24 - Sep 3 by DJR |
The Guardian says the trustees of the trust are Rayner, her ex-husband and the law firm Shoosmiths.
Shoosmiths is a pretty reputable and large UK law firm, and I would imagine that it set up the trust.
That being the case, it seems difficult to imagine that a firm such as that wouldn't know the law.
Maybe she used a local firm in Hove instead for the purchase which didn't have such expertise but if she wrong about the advice being wrong I imagine the solicitors firm concerned would not take this lying down.. [Post edited 3 Sep 17:26]
|
According to Dan Neidle, respected tax law commentator, Shoosmith's has said that it was not the firm which advised Angela Rayner to pay the lower amount of stamp duty on her Hove flat.
So maybe she did use whichever solicitor the estate agent selling the flat recommended. Maybe they didn't ask about any applicable trusts and Rayner's understanding of the intricacies of the law on trusts and home ownership was sketchy.
A bit naive of Rayner if so. |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 08:20 - Sep 4 with 531 views | soupytwist |
| Another nail in the coffin on 07:09 - Sep 4 by Churchman |
I think it’s irrelevant whether an action is directly Rayner’s fault or not when it comes to her affairs. She is accountable. Simple as that.
Lack of accountability and blaming others, especially those down the food chain that cannot answer back, seems to be a first port of call for politicians and this has been for decades. The last one to put his hand up that I can recall is Lord Carrington who resigned over the failure to foresee the Falklands invasion in 1982. |
And, unless there's evidence that she lied or gave misleading information in some other way, accountability means paying the right amount of tax and any applicable interest to HMRC doesn't it? Which I'm pretty sure she will. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 08:44 - Sep 4 with 476 views | Churchman |
| Another nail in the coffin on 08:20 - Sep 4 by soupytwist |
And, unless there's evidence that she lied or gave misleading information in some other way, accountability means paying the right amount of tax and any applicable interest to HMRC doesn't it? Which I'm pretty sure she will. |
And presumably accepting any petty fine that goes with it.
Yes, we all make mistakes. The trick is avoiding as many as one can and I’d have thought that if you were in public life you would make doubly sure you were squeaky clean.
As the moment, as co-executor, I am dealing with my late brother in law’s affairs. They are financially complex beyond belief. Of course we have employed solicitors to do the work, but I will be making sure I understand as much as I can before the IHT paperwork goes to HMRC and and also seeking advice from a tax inspector chum of mine.
Why should I do this? Because my name is going against it. I see it as my responsibility to know that as far as possible it’s been done right, not least for the large number of charities that will benefit. It’s too important to ignore/ just leave purely it to ‘the experts’, though they will of course be doing all the work for their £. It’s well beyond the scope of my tiny brain.
Back to Rayner, it’s down to her. Nobody else. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 09:38 - Sep 4 with 406 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin on 08:18 - Sep 4 by soupytwist |
According to Dan Neidle, respected tax law commentator, Shoosmith's has said that it was not the firm which advised Angela Rayner to pay the lower amount of stamp duty on her Hove flat.
So maybe she did use whichever solicitor the estate agent selling the flat recommended. Maybe they didn't ask about any applicable trusts and Rayner's understanding of the intricacies of the law on trusts and home ownership was sketchy.
A bit naive of Rayner if so. |
Not really. If property is in trust for someone else you do not own it. It's an unusual and surprising position even to a lawyer. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 09:48 - Sep 4 with 362 views | Vaughan8 |
| Another nail in the coffin on 19:06 - Sep 3 by redrickstuhaart |
I dont agree. Sounds like an unusual trust arrangement, court imposed or sanctioned, and "wealth management" people dont do conveyancing.... |
The trust is complex, the tax rules are not.
What property the higher rates apply to
When you know who the rules apply to, you should work out how many residential properties each of you will own at the end of the day of your new purchase.
If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential
It probably something you can find on the HMRC in 5 minutes. 3 poeple, 4 including her, couldn't see this?
The more I read about this the more I think its a bit fishy! | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 09:50 - Sep 4 with 354 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 09:38 - Sep 4 by redrickstuhaart |
Not really. If property is in trust for someone else you do not own it. It's an unusual and surprising position even to a lawyer. |
trouble is that when the hmrc website says: "Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)"
it becomes more difficult. When you complete any tax return you are required to take appropriate care - reading the short, easy reading guidance issued by the hmrc is not an unreasonable expectation. Equally, if you rely of expert advice it has to be from someone qualified to provide it - on the face of it, given the hmrc guidance, it's hard to see how an appropriately qualified expert said it was all ok. but the standards enquiry will tell us what the real case is - there may very well be complications that haven't been reported. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:07 - Sep 4 with 311 views | BloomBlue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:44 - Sep 3 by reusersfreekicks |
She sold the stake in her previous one to her son' trust. So this is her only property |
But she's a beneficiary on the trust. She has even admitted she should have paid 2nd home tax, so clearly she is an owner/beneficiary of another property.
Even Gov website re stamp duty includes info:-
Include any residential property that:
Is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
You have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust.
I'm guessing her son is under 18 and therefore on the trust (even though its a trust for him) an adult will need to act on that child's behalf. Once your on a trust you're by default a beneficiary, and the Guardian confirmed she is on the trust
So basically she sold that part of the property to herself as a beneficiary in that trust.
She talked about deeming provision, which is the portion a lot of people add to trusts to avoid local authority from taking ownership of a property to sell it to cover the costs of care home for that individual (sorry thats a very generic overview). I'm assuming that was added to the trust to protect her child in that situation. But that section is basically stating the trust beneficiaries have control over the property - and she's listed as a beneficiary.
It's a complex model I agree. But stamp duty is a tax same as income tax, NI, etc etc. Like all taxes Govs will make changes to close loopholes and trusts were being used to avoid stamp duty, changes were made about 5 or 6 years ago to close that.
Thats why a lot of people have been caught out re SD on 2nd home and trusts.
I'm also shocked it didn't raise a massive red flag with the solicitor, given a lot of problems have occurred recently with trusts/SD
Whether it was bad advice or she didn't declare everything, tbc. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:29 - Sep 4 with 290 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin on 09:50 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
trouble is that when the hmrc website says: "Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)"
it becomes more difficult. When you complete any tax return you are required to take appropriate care - reading the short, easy reading guidance issued by the hmrc is not an unreasonable expectation. Equally, if you rely of expert advice it has to be from someone qualified to provide it - on the face of it, given the hmrc guidance, it's hard to see how an appropriately qualified expert said it was all ok. but the standards enquiry will tell us what the real case is - there may very well be complications that haven't been reported. |
It would have been for the solicitors to work out the stamp duty and submit the necessary form, which is different to the sort of tax return that individuals might complete for a tax year.
The question appears to boil down to whether the solicitors knew of the existence of the trust, and if so, if they knew the law. [Post edited 4 Sep 10:31]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:32 - Sep 4 with 269 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:29 - Sep 4 by DJR |
It would have been for the solicitors to work out the stamp duty and submit the necessary form, which is different to the sort of tax return that individuals might complete for a tax year.
The question appears to boil down to whether the solicitors knew of the existence of the trust, and if so, if they knew the law. [Post edited 4 Sep 10:31]
|
when i last purchased a house i did it myself online. there is a stamp duty calculator which links you to the hmrc advice on each issue. if the form was indeed submitted by a solicitor - which i don't think she has claimed - they are in trouble professionally. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:39 - Sep 4 with 244 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:32 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
when i last purchased a house i did it myself online. there is a stamp duty calculator which links you to the hmrc advice on each issue. if the form was indeed submitted by a solicitor - which i don't think she has claimed - they are in trouble professionally. |
I can't imagine Rayner would have had the time to do it herself, which I wouldn't have thought many people do anyway.
But who knows. [Post edited 4 Sep 10:40]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:45 - Sep 4 with 212 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:39 - Sep 4 by DJR |
I can't imagine Rayner would have had the time to do it herself, which I wouldn't have thought many people do anyway.
But who knows. [Post edited 4 Sep 10:40]
|
really? the first question people ask when planning to buy a house is how much can i afford to spend - well that depends partly on what the tax will be. so they go online and ask how do i calculate stamp duty - a search which takes you straight to the hmrc calculator. you put in some details and it flags up wether the new house is an additional house and points you to the hmrc advice. none of that is unreasonable to expect someone to do. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:48 - Sep 4 with 188 views | Vaughan8 |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:45 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
really? the first question people ask when planning to buy a house is how much can i afford to spend - well that depends partly on what the tax will be. so they go online and ask how do i calculate stamp duty - a search which takes you straight to the hmrc calculator. you put in some details and it flags up wether the new house is an additional house and points you to the hmrc advice. none of that is unreasonable to expect someone to do. |
It's not worth the effort. Some people just won't admit she's done wrong because they're so pro Labour.
Someone on the other thread is using her disabled son as an excuse, which has nothing to do with this underpaid tax. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:56 - Sep 4 with 154 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:45 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
really? the first question people ask when planning to buy a house is how much can i afford to spend - well that depends partly on what the tax will be. so they go online and ask how do i calculate stamp duty - a search which takes you straight to the hmrc calculator. you put in some details and it flags up wether the new house is an additional house and points you to the hmrc advice. none of that is unreasonable to expect someone to do. |
The internet was in short trousers when I last bought a house (and stamp duty wasn't so complicated) but if you mean the following, answering no to the question "Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties/" does not result in the stamp duty addition for second homes.
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/calculate-stamp-duty-land-tax/#!/intro
Putting it another way, that question is not as nuanced as it should be, and certainly not as clear as the guidance. It also doesn't contain a link to the guidance.
Indeed, that is why (in my view) it is always best to leave things to the solicitors. [Post edited 4 Sep 11:03]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 11:04 - Sep 4 with 117 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:56 - Sep 4 by DJR |
The internet was in short trousers when I last bought a house (and stamp duty wasn't so complicated) but if you mean the following, answering no to the question "Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties/" does not result in the stamp duty addition for second homes.
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/calculate-stamp-duty-land-tax/#!/intro
Putting it another way, that question is not as nuanced as it should be, and certainly not as clear as the guidance. It also doesn't contain a link to the guidance.
Indeed, that is why (in my view) it is always best to leave things to the solicitors. [Post edited 4 Sep 11:03]
|
if you answer yes the amount of tax calculated is greater than if you answer no. the link you provided includes prominently "you should check the guidance" with a further link.
the standards inquiry will tell us if what she did was reasonable - there may be things we don't know - but on the face of it either rayner or her 'advisors' were incompetent. my strong suspicion based on the wording of statements is that the 'advisors' will turn out to have been informal with no record of what question was asked or what answer was given. i may well be wrong. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin on 11:18 - Sep 4 with 73 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin on 11:04 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
if you answer yes the amount of tax calculated is greater than if you answer no. the link you provided includes prominently "you should check the guidance" with a further link.
the standards inquiry will tell us if what she did was reasonable - there may be things we don't know - but on the face of it either rayner or her 'advisors' were incompetent. my strong suspicion based on the wording of statements is that the 'advisors' will turn out to have been informal with no record of what question was asked or what answer was given. i may well be wrong. |
We could carry on speculating and arguing the toss till the cows come home but probably little point, so I'll leave it there. [Post edited 4 Sep 11:19]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
