| Another nail in the coffin 11:40 - Sep 3 with 4316 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 11:41 - Sep 4 with 517 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin on 10:07 - Sep 4 by BloomBlue |
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. |
Lots of guessing there without seeing the documents.... I've not seen it suggested she was a beneficiary still. She sold her interest to buy the new place. |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 16:23 - Sep 4 with 417 views | DJR |
| 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]
|
This suggests my hunch about using a local firm is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/04/angela-rayner-used-family-conve
EDIT: Rather alarmingly, they are merely a firm of licensed conveyancers. My understanding is that licensed conveyancers are not solicitors. And a firm of licensed conveyancers would have no expertise in any other area of law, whereas most firms of solicitors have several areas of practice. [Post edited 4 Sep 16:42]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:13 - Sep 4 with 345 views | BloomBlue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 16:23 - Sep 4 by DJR |
This suggests my hunch about using a local firm is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/04/angela-rayner-used-family-conve
EDIT: Rather alarmingly, they are merely a firm of licensed conveyancers. My understanding is that licensed conveyancers are not solicitors. And a firm of licensed conveyancers would have no expertise in any other area of law, whereas most firms of solicitors have several areas of practice. [Post edited 4 Sep 16:42]
|
That Company have just announced they never offered her Tax advise, just conveyancing. I guess they simply took the info she gave them on how much stamp duty based on it not being a second home.
The next question is, Who did she obtain the tax advice from |  | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:18 - Sep 4 with 333 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:13 - Sep 4 by BloomBlue |
That Company have just announced they never offered her Tax advise, just conveyancing. I guess they simply took the info she gave them on how much stamp duty based on it not being a second home.
The next question is, Who did she obtain the tax advice from |
A competent solicitor ought to know about stamp duty because it is part and parcel of a conveyancing transaction, and I believe that there has been a higher rate for additional properties since 2016. [Post edited 4 Sep 18:23]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:27 - Sep 4 with 316 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:13 - Sep 4 by BloomBlue |
That Company have just announced they never offered her Tax advise, just conveyancing. I guess they simply took the info she gave them on how much stamp duty based on it not being a second home.
The next question is, Who did she obtain the tax advice from |
It shouldn’t be overlooked that as Trustee of the fund who purchased her share of the house she had a foot in both camps. It is inconceivable that she would be unaware of her tax position.
Hard to think that Shoosmiths would have failed to inform her. |  |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:32 - Sep 4 with 295 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:27 - Sep 4 by Pinewoodblue |
It shouldn’t be overlooked that as Trustee of the fund who purchased her share of the house she had a foot in both camps. It is inconceivable that she would be unaware of her tax position.
Hard to think that Shoosmiths would have failed to inform her. |
i think the standards inquiry will find that she believed her tax calculation to be correct and didn't act dishonestly, and then will fudge the question of whether she took adequate advice. starmer will then fudge the decision on her future saying that he'll wait until the hmrc decide whether or not she gets a fine for not taking enough care with her return. |  |
| 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 (n/t) on 18:35 - Sep 4 with 276 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:32 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the standards inquiry will find that she believed her tax calculation to be correct and didn't act dishonestly, and then will fudge the question of whether she took adequate advice. starmer will then fudge the decision on her future saying that he'll wait until the hmrc decide whether or not she gets a fine for not taking enough care with her return. |
Why is making a proper assessment "fudging"? Why would the standards investigator (a Sunak appointment by the way) want to fudge anything?
If it was genuine, and she was ill advised, then it is not an issue of integrity and there is little good reason to seek resignation.
Unfortunately the bar on this stuff was set so low by the previous government.... | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:40 - Sep 4 with 254 views | lowhouseblue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:35 - Sep 4 by redrickstuhaart |
Why is making a proper assessment "fudging"? Why would the standards investigator (a Sunak appointment by the way) want to fudge anything?
If it was genuine, and she was ill advised, then it is not an issue of integrity and there is little good reason to seek resignation.
Unfortunately the bar on this stuff was set so low by the previous government.... |
fudge because i'm guessing there won't be a clear trail recording the questions she asked and the advice she received, and knowing for sure what someone really knew, or should have known, is always inherently fuzzy. but i am just guessing. | |
| 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 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:41 - Sep 4 with 254 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:32 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the standards inquiry will find that she believed her tax calculation to be correct and didn't act dishonestly, and then will fudge the question of whether she took adequate advice. starmer will then fudge the decision on her future saying that he'll wait until the hmrc decide whether or not she gets a fine for not taking enough care with her return. |
Depends what you call dishonesty.
Can recall a situation, many years ago when cash was still king, paying for a business lunch and being given too much change. I handed it back pointing out the error.
My two immediate bosses both expressed surprise and said they wouldn’t have said anything. I regarded it as dishonest not to say anything, they clearly didn’t. | |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:47 - Sep 4 with 228 views | BloomBlue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:18 - Sep 4 by DJR |
A competent solicitor ought to know about stamp duty because it is part and parcel of a conveyancing transaction, and I believe that there has been a higher rate for additional properties since 2016. [Post edited 4 Sep 18:23]
|
There has been loads of errors with 2nd home stamp duty related to trusts over recent years after the government changed the rules to stop the use of trusts being used to avoid paying 2nd home SD.
Not sure DJR, but if the company said to her we only provide conveyancing anything related to tax (stamp duty) you need to obtain specialist advice. Technically they're covered in this instance i guess
I know someone who recently got into difficulties around tax and a trust, and the advice he received from a solicitor was incorrect. He was told his mistake was asking a solicitor, he should have spoken with a tax advisor/accountant - I will add his issue wasnt the same issue as Rayner's | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 19:16 - Sep 4 with 179 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:18 - Sep 4 by DJR |
A competent solicitor ought to know about stamp duty because it is part and parcel of a conveyancing transaction, and I believe that there has been a higher rate for additional properties since 2016. [Post edited 4 Sep 18:23]
|
Yes.... but the quirk of trust property not actually owned or retaining any beneficial interest therein, is odd and probably not known by many.
Most conveyancing, and payment of sdlt, is of course done by legal execs and paralegals, because conveyancing doesnt really pay. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 19:17 - Sep 4 with 177 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:27 - Sep 4 by Pinewoodblue |
It shouldn’t be overlooked that as Trustee of the fund who purchased her share of the house she had a foot in both camps. It is inconceivable that she would be unaware of her tax position.
Hard to think that Shoosmiths would have failed to inform her. |
Its not remotely inconceivable. A trustee does not own the property in a beneficial sense. Thats the whole point. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 19:21 - Sep 4 with 169 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:40 - Sep 4 by lowhouseblue |
fudge because i'm guessing there won't be a clear trail recording the questions she asked and the advice she received, and knowing for sure what someone really knew, or should have known, is always inherently fuzzy. but i am just guessing. |
Just seen my son. He works for one of the "Big 4" accounting firms. He says she hasn't got a leg to stand on unfortunately. |  |
| |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 21:20 - Sep 4 with 110 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 18:47 - Sep 4 by BloomBlue |
There has been loads of errors with 2nd home stamp duty related to trusts over recent years after the government changed the rules to stop the use of trusts being used to avoid paying 2nd home SD.
Not sure DJR, but if the company said to her we only provide conveyancing anything related to tax (stamp duty) you need to obtain specialist advice. Technically they're covered in this instance i guess
I know someone who recently got into difficulties around tax and a trust, and the advice he received from a solicitor was incorrect. He was told his mistake was asking a solicitor, he should have spoken with a tax advisor/accountant - I will add his issue wasnt the same issue as Rayner's |
I still think that this ultimately comes down to the following point that I made early on this thread, and which links with the point I made in the OP about ineptitude.
"And with her role in relation to housing, she needed the best possible advisers in this case, particularly given concerns a year or so ago about the tax/council tax position in relation to her home in her constituency: assuming of course that it is bad advice which is the issue." [Post edited 4 Sep 21:22]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 21:33 - Sep 4 with 84 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 21:20 - Sep 4 by DJR |
I still think that this ultimately comes down to the following point that I made early on this thread, and which links with the point I made in the OP about ineptitude.
"And with her role in relation to housing, she needed the best possible advisers in this case, particularly given concerns a year or so ago about the tax/council tax position in relation to her home in her constituency: assuming of course that it is bad advice which is the issue." [Post edited 4 Sep 21:22]
|
I think thats bollox.
If I had bought a property in the same situation, I doubt I would have spotted, or been on enough notice, to be alive to this issue. And, to be blunt, I know quite a lot about such things. | | | |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 21:36 - Sep 4 with 73 views | DJR |
| Another nail in the coffin (n/t) on 21:33 - Sep 4 by redrickstuhaart |
I think thats bollox.
If I had bought a property in the same situation, I doubt I would have spotted, or been on enough notice, to be alive to this issue. And, to be blunt, I know quite a lot about such things. |
I happen to be a solicitor myself. and still don't understand why she didn't use Shoosmiths for the house purchase, that being the firm which created the trust and would have been aware of it.
And if Shoosmiths don't know the law, or don't ask the right questions, given plain HMRC guidance then standards have certainly slipped since I qualified forty odd years ago.
[Post edited 4 Sep 21:47]
| | | |
| Another nail in the coffin on 21:47 - Sep 4 with 59 views | Leaky |
| Another nail in the coffin on 12:07 - Sep 3 by Kievthegreat |
It seems bizarre to talk of nous when by all accounts she sought expert advice. If I seek expert advice on a legal or financial matter and their judgement or advice is wrong, that is not a lack of nous on my part.
If she supplied wrong information then it could perhaps be on her. It could well be an honest mistake on all parties because it's pretty unique circumstances with non-obvious implications. |
Seems like double standards from some on here regarding politicians on this site going back to the last government if this had happened there would be dogs abuse justifiably dished out Raymer is is just as calpable and should resign |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
