 | Forum
Reply | Where's the pressure on Farage to resign for avoiding stamp duty?
at 11:14 8 Sep 2025
So just a small point, but I don't think there is any suggestion that Raynor 'evaded' tax, as that would involve a deliberate action with the intention of not paying tax which she knew was due.
But yes, based on what we know right now, Farage's conduct amounts to legal avoidance which Raynors did not. I emphasise 'based on what we know right now', because I'm sure I can't be the only one to think that there is a deeper story here. Why? Because although what Farage did was technically legal, it only remains legal if there is no underlying document which preserves Farage's beneficial interest in the property. Either that document exists, or he has a HUGE amount of trust in his partner., because if they split, he has no claim on that property whatsoever as its in her name. He would surely have been advised against this unless he had appropriate protection?
Maybe he has a charge over the property equivalent to his cash injection? Not sure if that would count as ownership for SDLT purposes anyway. Something doesn't seem right, and I'm sure the media will be scrabbling for all the dirt! |
| Forum
Reply | Double standards?
at 05:35 6 Sep 2025
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 ;) |
| Forum
Reply | Double standards?
at 05:24 6 Sep 2025
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. |
| Forum
Reply | Double standards?
at 13:33 5 Sep 2025
Of course one of the major advantages of incorporating is to effectively protect your personal assets from any liability you might face for negligently providing goods or services. That's entirely legitimate.
I'm sorry but I think the argument you are making here is a weak one. As long as Farage is following the law, you can't bracket his legitimate tax avoidance behaviour in with a clear failure to pay the required tax, whichever way our politics might lean.
I also find the point that people could choose not to deploy the most tax-efficient strategy somewhat arbitrary. Tax laws need to be effective and any system which relies on voluntary behaviour which is disadvantageous to the individual tax payer involved (when compared to the behaviour permitted by the tax laws in force at the time) is already broken. |
| Forum
Reply | After the 23/24 season it feels like every dropped point
at 19:04 23 Aug 2025
Even in 23/24 we lost to Preston away and drew with Birmingham away. We're only 2 points behind on achieving the 23/24 points haul. Granted, we don't look like getting as many points on current performances, but this often happens to relegated teams. Look at Southampton in 23/24. After the transfer window shut, they lost 4 games on the spin (including against us), but by the end of the season they were the ones who had all the momentum and ended up getting promoted. I think we could be going down a similar path here. Whilst all the possession today doesn't seem like it counted for much, in the grand scheme of things, I think it will have been priceless in order to get the 'connections' going as KMck has said post match. |
| Forum
Reply | 1-24 Prediction Competition
at 14:29 4 Aug 2025
1. Ipswich Town
2. Sheffield United
3. Birmingham City
4. Southampton
5. Norwich City
6. Leicester City
7. West Bromwich Albion
8. Wrexham
9. Millwall
10. Coventry City
11. Middlesbrough
12. Stoke City
13. Swansea City
14. Watford
15. Portsmouth
16. Bristol City
17. Hull City
18. Oxford United
19. Derby County
20. Queens Park Rangers
21. Preston North End
22. Blackburn Rovers
23. Charlton Athletic
24. Sheffield Wednesday |
| Forum
Reply | McIlroy v Rose Masters Play off
at 09:22 14 Apr 2025
Well done Rory McIlroy! Thoroughly deserved, and such a dramatic evening of golf which was compelling viewing from start to finish. Glad he’s finally got this over the line and will probably push on from here to win a few more majors. Surely has to be favourite for SPOTY? |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 15:54 13 Mar 2025
Yes sorry I got a couple of references mixed up there. I think my points is clear though. The Capital Good scheme now applies, and whilst you say it would have been taken into account, a) the Tories contest this, and b) the total to be claimed is an unknown (Labour would have had to estimate), so until the claims are made it will be impossible to tell whether the measure has raised any extra money. That's why I said it will be interesting to see the figures in a few years time. I think this debate has gone as far as it can. |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 16:54 12 Mar 2025
All businesses need to adapt or die. Not sure what this adds to the debate. I think your point about 'schools having 'fat' in them which can be trimmed is lazy and only accurate for the elite schools like Eton etc. |
| Forum
Reply | Well, knock me down with a feather!
at 00:20 12 Mar 2025
It wouldn't have been that complicated as before the trading most of the services provided were not vatable supplies and therefore there would be no VAT recovery on any items that related to those supplies.
What I think people don't understand is that VAT recovery of ongoing trading expenses is one thing, but actually the big ticket item is CAPITAL ALLOWANCES. For schools like Eton etc, this will amount to 10's of millions of pounds, and will be payable on submission of a claim. It will be interesting to see the figures on this down the line, but my prediction (and I'm not alone here) is that the amount claimed in backdated capital allowances will far exceed any revenue raised by this measure. The glee that the OP seems to be displaying is certainly misplaced at least on this point.
I also agree with what others have said that the full effect of these measures will be more apparent many months from now when the impact on the beginning of the next full school year will be apparent. However, logically the impact now would be a decline in NEW pupil enquiries, ie. parents willing to start their child in private education knowing the current VAT position. The evidence here seems pretty grim:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/04/private-schools-closusre-blame-labou |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 09:57 31 Jan 2025
I don’t know who would pay for it, but I’m guessing it would be the local authority in the first instance. But this cost could easily be recovered as part of the developers payment into the nature restoration fund. Also, I don’t think there’s any doubt that a proper assessment by a qualified ecologist(s) will be required. Just one big regional assessment though, rather than the thousands of site specific ones we have now. Of course, in carrying out the regional assessments, they have the benefit of access to all previous EIAs submitted before, and I’m guessing these would at least partially inform regional assessments. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 09:50 31 Jan 2025
I agree that habitat for humanity are doing great work. One of the most exciting things they are at the forefront of is 3D concrete printing/construction which has the potential to transform the construction industry worldwide. Sadly the UK will lag behind because our planning laws on design are not very compatible with the technology. Another area of planning in this country which needs fundamental reform. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 22:59 29 Jan 2025
I don’t think this would be as costly as you’re thinking it would be, although I admit that I don’t know what the cost of each regional plan would be. The idea though as I understand it is that each local planning authority would be responsible for drawing up a single strategic assessment and delivery plan for the area under its purview. IMO it would be a straightforward process to map a local authority area into relevant designations, much as we currently have conservation areas etc with settlements. Some sites will have protected status if they meet certain criteria (meaning no environmental harm will be acceptable), other sites will have development status (ie they are considered essential for a town/city’s growth and do not have so many of the features of a protected site (these sites might be strategic land on the edge of settlements or designated sites in the local plan). This won’t be a charter to bulldoze ALL land in ALL areas irrespective of the environment.
The bottom line is that you’ve got two legitimate competing interests here. I don’t think any rational person would argue that 100% of the natural environment should be preserved in perpetuity right? Assuming that’s true, it then simply becomes a matter of degree on how far you move the dial in an attempt to balance the legitimate competing interests of the environment and the need to develop new homes/infrastructure etc. The balance has tipped too far one way and the proposals represent a rebalancing, that’s all. Check out the Dec 2024 working paper from the government if it’s of interest. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 18:16 29 Jan 2025
Sorry but imho you are conflating a number of unrelated issues here. This has got nothing to do with supporting infrastructure, and everything to do with how we approach the issue of ensuring that building and construction has a net positive and enhancing effect on the environment as a whole. |
| Forum
Reply | fair to say Rachel Reeves is no fan of bats and newts
at 18:14 29 Jan 2025
Sorry but I think you've completely missed the point here.
It is proposed to replace EIAs with a different regionally based assessment which looks at the environment as a whole. Piecemeal mitigation on a project-by-project basis achieves very little and costs a disproportionate amount of money and resources. Better to pool money together and create regional mitigation schemes which really make a measurable difference. I think the OP explained it rather eloquently. |
| Forum
Reply | Philogene
at 00:11 12 Jan 2025
Posted in the other thread that I recalled it took ages for Villa to confirm the signing in the summer. Just checked online and the media were reporting that JP chose Villa ahead of us on 12th July, but move was only confirmed a week later on 19th July. Be patient everyone! |
| | bluestandard
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.