Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

Good old telegraph, never misses the opportunity of dishing the dirt. Along with most of the rest of the Tory newspaper media.
We live in precarious times, people are angry, even me and I have never been an angry person.
I worry for our future, so much division, so much hatred, the world is going mad.

Of course it is sleaze.

^Nadhim Zahawi's story about his tax affairs doesn't add up. After months of denials, the truth emerges.
His position is untenable. Rishi Sunak must dismiss him from his cabinet^.21.01.2023: Angela Rayner
He was sacked as Conservative Party Chairman in January 2024 because he had failed to disclose HMRC was investigating his tax affairs.

She cannot retain any credibility now, but some people clearly think one rule for, and another for Labour.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff we have spoken to three different IFA’s one of which is a very close family friend, and they have all given different advice and warnings

I am in two minds as to whether she should resign, do we expect our MP’s to be our betters or do we except them to have flaws like the rest of the population.

I do think that the PM is on a rather sticky wicket due to the Labour Party’s election promises of no more sleaze , could this come under the sleaze umbrella I am not sure 🤷‍♀️

Thank you for sharing your experiences. It obviously does happen that poor or incorrect advice is sometimes given.

As I am currently giving the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt on her decision-making re the final report from the Post Office Enquiry and her part in the debacle, I will do the same in this instance - wait for the report.

After all, it isn't our job.

In an ideal world, trusts should not be so complicated that the average man in the street has next to no clue, let alone a Deputy Prime Minister of a Country.

Of course if The Telegraph hadn't raised the issue AR wouldn't have sought a second opinion and would still be in blissful ignorance that she actually owes £40,000 in stamp duty. I hope whoever gave her the wrong advice comes clean about their mistake in case they've given similar advice to others.

The judge, Lord Tomlin, famously said: "Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be."

For the benefit of people who can't be bothered to do their own research I refer you to the DT, probably tomorrow's edition although accessible now to subscribers, The article is by Madeleine Ross and will probably be in the financial section.

AR sold her 25% stake of the family home to a trust in January (2025?)to provide for her children. As her children are under 18 and are beneficiaries of the Trust and she is an executor, she retains an interest in the property- and should have paid the second home stamp duty.
She now faces paying the £40,000she avoided, plus 8% interest of £1,000. Possibly also another £12,00o'carelessness' penalties
. "Given all the publicity HMRC will want to make an example of her and avoid taxpayers using the DPM's behaviour as a justification to dodge tax."
There is no doubt the intention was to deceive.

I leave you to discover why she wants a home in Hove.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff we have spoken to three different IFA’s one of which is a very close family friend, and they have all given different advice and warnings

I am in two minds as to whether she should resign, do we expect our MP’s to be our betters or do we except them to have flaws like the rest of the population.

I do think that the PM is on a rather sticky wicket due to the Labour Party’s election promises of no more sleaze , could this come under the sleaze umbrella I am not sure 🤷‍♀️

I've also come across that kind of thing in the past. Two very reputable lawyers gave different advice, so it could be that AR had every reason to trust her first lawyer.

Does this count as sleaze? Just going up to the line on what is legitimate? Can’t help feel that there’s going to be some slack in the way that the PM approaches this. Although a clever move from someone as AR looks less credible as a possible PM replacement.

In the past the honourable thing to do would have been to fall on your sword. I think her position is going to be untenable in any case.

growstuff we have spoken to three different IFA’s one of which is a very close family friend, and they have all given different advice and warnings

I am in two minds as to whether she should resign, do we expect our MP’s to be our betters or do we except them to have flaws like the rest of the population.

I do think that the PM is on a rather sticky wicket due to the Labour Party’s election promises of no more sleaze , could this come under the sleaze umbrella I am not sure 🤷‍♀️

eazybee

Two questions.
*Why did she need to withdraw her 'life savings' from her house to buy a property in Hove?
She has access to a property in London for use while working, and a property in her constituency when she is on constituency business and gives her access to her sons.

*Why the need for secrecy about setting up a Trust for her disabled son, which is common knowledge. That would have been accepted and might even have garnered her some sympathy.
It is the reason for the third property which is the key.
Blaming her tax advisers is shameful.
A woman without honour.

“Rayner says she was under a court order not to divulge details of the trust and so felt unable to go into detail about her personal financial arrangements. The deputy prime minister said she was released from that order on Tuesday night, prompting the full statement on Wednesday.”
The Guardian

The court order was put in place to prevent press intrusion into the life of her disabled son.

GrannyGravy13

Blimey I never thought I would be posting in defence of AR however, setting up a trust, any trust is a veritable minefield.

We are navigating this road at the moment, anything relating to trusts (avoidance of tax/IHT, providing for children’s future, which most trusts are used for) operate on the edges of what is legally allowed.

It is a minefield GrannyGravy13. However, in her position and with her contacts she should be able to access the VERY best advice there is. Far better than you and I could.

A useful site is Mencap. They have loads of info on Trusts.

GrannyGravy I know we don't always agree, but I've always thought you are fair and knowledgeable. I'm not sure what to think because I don't know enough about trust law.

I'm not a huge fan of AR, but it seems she asked for a second opinion and has paid/is paying the difference. She should probably resign to take the spotlight off her. I have no idea why she couldn't reveal details of the trust - and it's none of my business either.

Blimey I never thought I would be posting in defence of AR however, setting up a trust, any trust is a veritable minefield.

We are navigating this road at the moment, anything relating to trusts (avoidance of tax/IHT, providing for children’s future, which most trusts are used for) operate on the edges of what is legally allowed.

eazybee

Two questions.
*Why did she need to withdraw her 'life savings' from her house to buy a property in Hove?
She has access to a property in London for use while working, and a property in her constituency when she is on constituency business and gives her access to her sons.

*Why the need for secrecy about setting up a Trust for her disabled son, which is common knowledge. That would have been accepted and might even have garnered her some sympathy.
It is the reason for the third property which is the key.
Blaming her tax advisers is shameful.
A woman without honour.

OK! Maybe you could correct me. I thought the three properties are as follows:

1 The grace and favour home in London (a number of senior ministers plus the speaker and deputy speaker have them). Does anybody know if they count as "homes" for legal purposes?

2 The house in Ashton, which she shared with her ex-husband and is now in trust for her children. Does this still count as her constituency home?

3 The flat in Hove.

If the above is correct, Rayner actually owns one home - the one in Hove.

If she relinquished control of the house in Ashton to the trust and withdrew money, The Hove flat wasn't a second home. However, I haven't a clue about trust law.

So much of this just feels like prejudice. You might not want to be her friend in real life but can't you just wait for due process? That's how democracy works.

How is she going to pay the tax difference? She said she took out her life savings out of the property so she could buy the property in Hove.

Two questions.
*Why did she need to withdraw her 'life savings' from her house to buy a property in Hove?
She has access to a property in London for use while working, and a property in her constituency when she is on constituency business and gives her access to her sons.

*Why the need for secrecy about setting up a Trust for her disabled son, which is common knowledge. That would have been accepted and might even have garnered her some sympathy.
It is the reason for the third property which is the key.
Blaming her tax advisers is shameful.
A woman without honour.

Calendargirl

Have just watched the Sky interview.

I’m no fan of AR, but I felt sorry for her.

Surprisingly I actually did too but only for a few seconds.
I then thought about it and she didn’t look too upset or distressed just a few days ago when she was vaping and knocking back the vino on the beach.

I believe she has only now admitted she made “a mistake” because she has been uncovered. As Deputy PM she should have made sure she took the very best legal advice not just any old body.

A tax expert was just on Sky News discussing this and was trying to be professional but was doing his best not to laugh. He said she should have disclosed everything to her “expert” and the Trust Manager because they act on what they are told.

Keir can do nothing but defend her and she can do nothing but refer herself now.

growstuff

Iam64

The law on trusts is complex. She followed the legal advice she was given. After recent publicity, She checked out the advice from a specialist counsel which indicated she’d been wrongly advised.
AR paid the necessary tax. It’s clear she didn’t set out to avoid tax.

This needs repeating. I did think it might have had something to do with her disabled son and her statement confirms that.

I agree.

Having listened to the news report it seems her position is far from clear, if she was given advice that what she did was correct but now knows that advice was incorrect, she's done the right thing by paying up to do refering herself to the standards committee which is impartial.

Iam64

The law on trusts is complex. She followed the legal advice she was given. After recent publicity, She checked out the advice from a specialist counsel which indicated she’d been wrongly advised.
AR paid the necessary tax. It’s clear she didn’t set out to avoid tax.

This needs repeating. I did think it might have had something to do with her disabled son and her statement confirms that.

Have just watched the Sky interview.

I’m no fan of AR, but I felt sorry for her.

The usual theme with government and opposition. Mud slinging, accusations, some of which stick, causing resignations, others manage to wriggle off the hook. Depressingly once power is gained, feathering the nest can become a priority, operating just about within the law, and hoping for the best. The female MP who resigned after attempting to perform a lucrative three card trick with her properties, and at the same time putting through a bill to prevent the same, has to take the prize for August, but it seems Angela Rayner may be this month's candidate.