PaynesGrey
fancythat
Which sort of "two firms"?
Law firms. This is an extract from Sir Laurie Magnus's letter to the PM:
I have reviewed relevant documentation from the property transaction. This has included the advice she received at the time from the legal firms involved and the associated documentation that was prepared for her to effect the purchase. This advice gave rise to Ms Rayner’s understanding – which I consider to have been held in good faith – that the lower rate of SDLT was applicable when purchasing the property in Hove.
It is not necessary for me to detail the specific contents of this advice or the associated documentation but, having reviewed it, I would draw four conclusions:
a) Ms Rayner was open about the existence of the trust and considered that, between them, the firms advising her had appropriate knowledge and awareness of the details and circumstances of the trust;
b) On the basis of the advice she received, Ms Rayner believed that the lower rate of SDLT would be applicable; indeed she was twice informed in writing that this was the case; but
c) In those two instances, that advice was qualified by the acknowledgment that it did not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained; and
d) If such expert tax advice had been received, as it later was, it would likely have advised her that a higher rate of SDLT was payable.
It is c. that let her down.
And quite frankly, "an ordinary man in the street" would probably have sought such advice.
Let alone a Deputy Prime Minister of a Country.
I had a big hung fire on the whole thing. I was waiting for the verdict.
The verdict came. And it is not good news.
