| Double standards? on 13:36 - Sep 5 with 1387 views | DJR |
| Double standards? on 12:59 - Sep 5 by bsw72 |
IR35 significantly reduced the benefits of contracting through a ltd company, was introduced in 2000. Rumour is that it was when the gvmt noticed how much tax money they were losing through contractors in the Tech space around Y2K consultancy work :-)
Not been huge changes in sole trader vs incorporated benefits since then, although the gvmt clamped down around definition of in and out of IR35 around 2016-17. |
My understanding is that IR35 wouldn't have applied to me at the time I was self-employed. [Post edited 5 Sep 13:56]
|  | |  |
| Double standards? on 13:37 - Sep 5 with 1377 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Double standards? on 13:30 - Sep 5 by TractorWood |
Would probably challenge it to be a genuine and understandable error. If you have complex affairs, you seek advice. She did not and chose to not pay the tax. |
Nonsense. Evasion is deliberate. No suggestion of that here. |  | | |
| Double standards? on 13:40 - Sep 5 with 1352 views | Guthrum |
| Double standards? on 13:13 - Sep 5 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Tax avoidance is legal, practiced by almost everyone (be that an ISA or pension payments). Even footballers setting themselves as a limited company to avoid PAYE rates is a form of avoidance. If Farage is avoiding tax, it’s distasteful but not illegal. If he’s evading it then hopefully he’ll be collared for it.
However there was possible implication in Rayner’s case that it was tax evasion (by not fully disclosing), rather than a tax efficient scheme (therefore illegal). It appears to have been incompetence however by not seeking appropriate professional advice. That she’s resigned from the post was the recommendation of the Ministerial Standards committee.
As much as I can’t stand Farage, I can’t see the equivalence - I suspect a huge percentage of MP’s engaged in tax avoidance schemes. I don’t agree with that but being a minister and the Deputy PM you rightly should be held to higher standards. [Post edited 5 Sep 13:18]
|
Should someone who aspires to run the country be actively refusing to contribute to it? It's not a legal question, but a moral one. |  |
| |
| Double standards? on 13:50 - Sep 5 with 1321 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Double standards? on 13:40 - Sep 5 by Guthrum |
Should someone who aspires to run the country be actively refusing to contribute to it? It's not a legal question, but a moral one. |
No they shouldn’t be avoiding tax - don’t disagree at all but MP’s are the ones that set themselves rules (so I’m not entirely surprised). But there’s many reason he shouldn’t be running the country!
I was simply challenging the implication that it surprising Rayner’s tax situation receives more media scrutiny than Farages. She (held) the second highest seat in the country - if I was a journalist I know which story I’d go for! | | | |
| Double standards? on 15:52 - Sep 5 with 1176 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Double standards? on 13:50 - Sep 5 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
No they shouldn’t be avoiding tax - don’t disagree at all but MP’s are the ones that set themselves rules (so I’m not entirely surprised). But there’s many reason he shouldn’t be running the country!
I was simply challenging the implication that it surprising Rayner’s tax situation receives more media scrutiny than Farages. She (held) the second highest seat in the country - if I was a journalist I know which story I’d go for! |
Depends who you work for in that scenario.
Plus Chancellor home secretary and foreign secretary are higher offices |  | | |
| Double standards? on 15:58 - Sep 5 with 1175 views | noggin |
| Double standards? on 11:56 - Sep 5 by textbackup |
Simple question… why can’t they ALL just play by the rules that we do? |
"We" don't though. For example, how many people buy something from abroad and ask the seller to send it as a "gift"? It's all tax evasion/avoidance. |  |
| |
| Double standards? on 16:11 - Sep 5 with 1125 views | charlie_lynton |
This is just the start of it. When the truth comes out about the £162K she's trousered by flogging a house owned in trust, and sold at a market value twice as much as other houses in the street, it might be time to get a proper job to fund seaside houses, instead of the taxpayer. |  | | |
| Double standards? on 16:13 - Sep 5 with 1114 views | noggin |
| Double standards? on 16:11 - Sep 5 by charlie_lynton |
This is just the start of it. When the truth comes out about the £162K she's trousered by flogging a house owned in trust, and sold at a market value twice as much as other houses in the street, it might be time to get a proper job to fund seaside houses, instead of the taxpayer. |
You might want to provide evidence for this. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Double standards? on 16:17 - Sep 5 with 1095 views | Ryorry |
| Double standards? on 16:13 - Sep 5 by noggin |
You might want to provide evidence for this. |
Never mind, Phil was probably already getting bored by the international break  |  |
| |
| Double standards? on 16:18 - Sep 5 with 1085 views | TractorWood |
| Double standards? on 13:37 - Sep 5 by redrickstuhaart |
Nonsense. Evasion is deliberate. No suggestion of that here. |
It's not nonsense. If you have had any dealings with HMRC through tax compliance or complex areas you would know ignorance is not an excuse.
'Oh, sorry i didn't know you need to pay CGT, so I didn't'. |  |
| |
| Double standards? on 16:18 - Sep 5 with 1084 views | noggin |
| Double standards? on 16:17 - Sep 5 by Ryorry |
Never mind, Phil was probably already getting bored by the international break |
He must dread these international breaks. | |
| |
| Double standards? on 16:26 - Sep 5 with 1046 views | Vaughan8 |
| Double standards? on 16:18 - Sep 5 by TractorWood |
It's not nonsense. If you have had any dealings with HMRC through tax compliance or complex areas you would know ignorance is not an excuse.
'Oh, sorry i didn't know you need to pay CGT, so I didn't'. |
Yeah I don't think that comes under "reasonable excuse" haha | | | |
| Double standards? on 17:34 - Sep 5 with 959 views | EdwardStone |
| Double standards? on 13:40 - Sep 5 by Guthrum |
Should someone who aspires to run the country be actively refusing to contribute to it? It's not a legal question, but a moral one. |
Also an intelligence question....
Running a country is a massively challenging task, so many options, so many competing priorities. One would need the brain the size of a planet to make a decent job of it.
Sorting the tax affairs of a house purchase is simple in comparison
If Rayner is not able to do the latter, how poor must she be at the former? |  | | |
| Double standards? on 18:04 - Sep 5 with 891 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Double standards? on 16:18 - Sep 5 by TractorWood |
It's not nonsense. If you have had any dealings with HMRC through tax compliance or complex areas you would know ignorance is not an excuse.
'Oh, sorry i didn't know you need to pay CGT, so I didn't'. |
Of course its nonsense. Ignorance is not an excuse. Being wrongly advised almost certainly is, though you may still get a penalty.
Neither of those things are evasion, which is a deliberate dishonest action with criminal sanctions. Stop disingenuously conflating. | | | |
| Double standards? on 18:59 - Sep 5 with 790 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Double standards? on 17:34 - Sep 5 by EdwardStone |
Also an intelligence question....
Running a country is a massively challenging task, so many options, so many competing priorities. One would need the brain the size of a planet to make a decent job of it.
Sorting the tax affairs of a house purchase is simple in comparison
If Rayner is not able to do the latter, how poor must she be at the former? |
Maybe the requirements of the former got in the way of doing the latter prop | | | |
| Double standards? on 21:30 - Sep 5 with 659 views | TractorWood |
| Double standards? on 18:04 - Sep 5 by redrickstuhaart |
Of course its nonsense. Ignorance is not an excuse. Being wrongly advised almost certainly is, though you may still get a penalty.
Neither of those things are evasion, which is a deliberate dishonest action with criminal sanctions. Stop disingenuously conflating. |
I'm absolutely not. You stated 'Just genuine and understandable error'.
The housing minister concluding that she didn't need to pay stamp duty on a house that wasn't her primary and only residence is tremendously questionable in any scenario.
I worked in legal for a decade and the number one rule is to not provide tax advice. To then not take tax discreet tax advice is ridiculous. Particularly given the emerging complexity of her affairs.
I see no logic for it being even vaguely justified as genuine or understandable.
From Sky:
Who did Ms Rayner get her advice from?
The cabinet minister did not initially name who she consulted but it has emerged conveyancing firm, Verrico and Associates, was one of the companies.
It has said its lawyers "never" gave Ms Rayner tax advice and were being made "scapegoats".
In a statement, managing director Joanna Verrico said: "We're not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these."
The founder of the small high street firm, based in Herne Bay, Kent, said it completed her stamp duty return "based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner".
"We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
"We probably are being made scapegoats for all this, and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it."
Sky News understands Ms Rayner consulted three people before buying the Hove flat - including two experts on the law around trusts.
However, it is not clear if they were experts in tax law.
In a thread on X, tax expert Dan Neidle wrote that if Ms Rayner did not consult the right lawyers then it could be considered carelessness on her part. [Post edited 5 Sep 21:40]
| |
| |
| Double standards? on 21:37 - Sep 5 with 643 views | Vaughan8 |
| Double standards? on 18:04 - Sep 5 by redrickstuhaart |
Of course its nonsense. Ignorance is not an excuse. Being wrongly advised almost certainly is, though you may still get a penalty.
Neither of those things are evasion, which is a deliberate dishonest action with criminal sanctions. Stop disingenuously conflating. |
She was wrongly advised because she didn't disclose everything.
Do you really think a discussion didn't happen when she sold her 25% in the property to a trust. "Does this mean I owe no home for Stamp Duty"?
She's not thick, whether she's done it deliberately only she knows but the advice she was given was from the information they were given. | | | |
| Double standards? on 22:40 - Sep 5 with 600 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Double standards? on 21:30 - Sep 5 by TractorWood |
I'm absolutely not. You stated 'Just genuine and understandable error'.
The housing minister concluding that she didn't need to pay stamp duty on a house that wasn't her primary and only residence is tremendously questionable in any scenario.
I worked in legal for a decade and the number one rule is to not provide tax advice. To then not take tax discreet tax advice is ridiculous. Particularly given the emerging complexity of her affairs.
I see no logic for it being even vaguely justified as genuine or understandable.
From Sky:
Who did Ms Rayner get her advice from?
The cabinet minister did not initially name who she consulted but it has emerged conveyancing firm, Verrico and Associates, was one of the companies.
It has said its lawyers "never" gave Ms Rayner tax advice and were being made "scapegoats".
In a statement, managing director Joanna Verrico said: "We're not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these."
The founder of the small high street firm, based in Herne Bay, Kent, said it completed her stamp duty return "based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner".
"We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.
"We probably are being made scapegoats for all this, and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it."
Sky News understands Ms Rayner consulted three people before buying the Hove flat - including two experts on the law around trusts.
However, it is not clear if they were experts in tax law.
In a thread on X, tax expert Dan Neidle wrote that if Ms Rayner did not consult the right lawyers then it could be considered carelessness on her part. [Post edited 5 Sep 21:40]
|
You have even confirmed the point in your response. Carelessness is not evasion. | | | |
| Double standards? on 22:40 - Sep 5 with 599 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Double standards? on 21:37 - Sep 5 by Vaughan8 |
She was wrongly advised because she didn't disclose everything.
Do you really think a discussion didn't happen when she sold her 25% in the property to a trust. "Does this mean I owe no home for Stamp Duty"?
She's not thick, whether she's done it deliberately only she knows but the advice she was given was from the information they were given. |
How do you know this? | | | |
| Double standards? on 22:52 - Sep 5 with 581 views | Vaughan8 |
I thought the Lawyer's said they worked out the stamp duty on the information provided? | | | |
| Double standards? on 05:24 - Sep 6 with 323 views | bluestandard |
| Double standards? on 22:52 - Sep 5 by Vaughan8 |
I thought the Lawyer's said they worked out the stamp duty on the information provided? |
They did. Unfortunately they didn’t have one crucial piece of specialist legal knowledge around ‘deeming provisions’ in the legislation when property is held in trust for a person under 18. In that scenario, the property is ‘deemed’ to be beneficially owned by the trustee, even though they don’t actually have beneficial ownership. I’m guessing this is to avoid abuse of the system and stop people from using their kids to avoid tax.
At first, I did think that Rayner was entirely at fault for not getting the expert advice even when she was expressly advised to do so by the law firm. Having reflected, I think that the law firm is slightly culpable here because it chose to offer its opinion, despite the complexity. If the matter had been a simple SDLT transaction with no complicating factors, then the law firm would have advised on the SDLT, but the same caveat over it not constituting tax advice would have been given. You wouldn’t then expect every buyer to get expert tax advice in every property transaction. That’s just silly. However, I think when a transaction goes beyond the basic level of complexity, then the law firm should not offer any opinion at all, and say that expert advice will be required to complete the transaction, or the buyer must confirm the level of tax they should pay at their own risk. In the Rayner case, if the law firm had never proffered an opinion, Rayner would 100% have obtained the tax advice and this situation would never have arisen. So it’s split culpability imo. | | | |
| Double standards? on 05:35 - Sep 6 with 298 views | bluestandard |
| Double standards? on 22:40 - Sep 5 by redrickstuhaart |
You have even confirmed the point in your response. Carelessness is not evasion. |
Don’t think TractorWood ever said it was evasion so not sure why you’re bringing it back to that each time. He did challenge your wording on ‘genuine and understandable error’, which I too have some trouble with, but having reflected and as per my previous post I do now half agree with you ;) | | | |
| Double standards? on 08:57 - Sep 6 with 159 views | DJR |
| Double standards? on 05:24 - Sep 6 by bluestandard |
They did. Unfortunately they didn’t have one crucial piece of specialist legal knowledge around ‘deeming provisions’ in the legislation when property is held in trust for a person under 18. In that scenario, the property is ‘deemed’ to be beneficially owned by the trustee, even though they don’t actually have beneficial ownership. I’m guessing this is to avoid abuse of the system and stop people from using their kids to avoid tax.
At first, I did think that Rayner was entirely at fault for not getting the expert advice even when she was expressly advised to do so by the law firm. Having reflected, I think that the law firm is slightly culpable here because it chose to offer its opinion, despite the complexity. If the matter had been a simple SDLT transaction with no complicating factors, then the law firm would have advised on the SDLT, but the same caveat over it not constituting tax advice would have been given. You wouldn’t then expect every buyer to get expert tax advice in every property transaction. That’s just silly. However, I think when a transaction goes beyond the basic level of complexity, then the law firm should not offer any opinion at all, and say that expert advice will be required to complete the transaction, or the buyer must confirm the level of tax they should pay at their own risk. In the Rayner case, if the law firm had never proffered an opinion, Rayner would 100% have obtained the tax advice and this situation would never have arisen. So it’s split culpability imo. |
It seems to me that core of this issue may well be the over-simple nature of the HMRC stamp duty calculator: this is not the only case where I have found that such calculators and the like don't work for difficult cases.
One of the questions in the calculator is
"Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties?"
This in turn is repeated in the quote form for the firm of licensed conveyancers that Rayner used. And was a question that my mother in law had to answer recently in connection with her conveyancing.
In my view that question is not sufficiently nuanced because most people probably would not think that "owning" a property picked up the trust property in Rayner's case.
Of course the HMRC calculator will probably work for 99.99999% of transactions but speaking as a solicitor, it seems to me to be a poor reflection on legal firms if the questions they ask clients are not sufficiently nuanced to reflect what is clear in pretty straightforward HMRC stamp duty guidance, namely, that certain trust property counts as owned property.
Finally, I worked as a commercial conveyancer forty odd years ago and when it came to stamp duty that was always something that was down to the lawyers to sort out, and it was certainly never the case that we would say to a client seek tax advice. Nor would we go off to counsel to get the answer.
[Post edited 6 Sep 10:02]
| | | |
| Double standards? on 09:04 - Sep 6 with 135 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Double standards? on 05:35 - Sep 6 by bluestandard |
Don’t think TractorWood ever said it was evasion so not sure why you’re bringing it back to that each time. He did challenge your wording on ‘genuine and understandable error’, which I too have some trouble with, but having reflected and as per my previous post I do now half agree with you ;) |
Because the post that prompted all those replies was explicitly me calling out a different poster for saying it was evasion when it clearly isnt. | | | |
| Double standards? on 09:52 - Sep 6 with 88 views | Vaughan8 |
| Double standards? on 05:24 - Sep 6 by bluestandard |
They did. Unfortunately they didn’t have one crucial piece of specialist legal knowledge around ‘deeming provisions’ in the legislation when property is held in trust for a person under 18. In that scenario, the property is ‘deemed’ to be beneficially owned by the trustee, even though they don’t actually have beneficial ownership. I’m guessing this is to avoid abuse of the system and stop people from using their kids to avoid tax.
At first, I did think that Rayner was entirely at fault for not getting the expert advice even when she was expressly advised to do so by the law firm. Having reflected, I think that the law firm is slightly culpable here because it chose to offer its opinion, despite the complexity. If the matter had been a simple SDLT transaction with no complicating factors, then the law firm would have advised on the SDLT, but the same caveat over it not constituting tax advice would have been given. You wouldn’t then expect every buyer to get expert tax advice in every property transaction. That’s just silly. However, I think when a transaction goes beyond the basic level of complexity, then the law firm should not offer any opinion at all, and say that expert advice will be required to complete the transaction, or the buyer must confirm the level of tax they should pay at their own risk. In the Rayner case, if the law firm had never proffered an opinion, Rayner would 100% have obtained the tax advice and this situation would never have arisen. So it’s split culpability imo. |
I think sometimes you have to take responsibility for yourself and explain everything, especially in the position she is.
Surely this should be double/triple checked. When she moved her share of the other home, surely they would have mentioned that you still "own" it as the beneficiaries are under 18.
You'd definitely get tax advice on a tax issue. I don't think the trust arrangement is as "complex" as people are making out.unusual maybe, bit not that complex when you break it down, and not for a tax expert.
As I've said previously, she's not stupid, far from it. Only she knows what's really gone on.
At best its a stupid and bad mistake. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
