Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

Allsorts

I think its do as I say not as I do, the fact that strong supporters think that OK as everyone does it, shows the lack of integrity they have, she was found out so confessed for damage limitation, only reason she's come clean. What chance does this country have if this is the best we have? Rachel Reeves and her do women no favours. One decent one is Jess Philips.

.

How do you know the reason AR ‘came clean’? A lot of people on these threads are claiming knowledge of what goes on in the heads of others. I’d love to know how anyone can be so sure of other people’s motives that they are willing to post about it on social media.

Also, why are female public figures held to higher account than men? Did Boris Johnson (or Jack The Ripper, or anyone else who has behaved badly) get accused of ‘doing men no favours’? Why not, I wonder.

As an aside GSM was a conveyancing solicitor and not an authority on tax. You would be very ill- advised to take advice on such a complicated issue from a conveyancing solicitor.

We did have a tax expert for a short period - silverbrooks

I see that a member of the “hard of thinking” society has vandalised Rayner’s flat.

The right wing media will get their meat I have no doubt. They have been in full cry since Rayner became shadow deputy PM.

I think its do as I say not as I do, the fact that strong supporters think that OK as everyone does it, shows the lack of integrity they have, she was found out so confessed for damage limitation, only reason she's come clean. What chance does this country have if this is the best we have? Rachel Reeves and her do women no favours. One decent one is Jess Philips.

.

If the mix up over trust regulations are the only errors AR will
probably keep her job, trusts have complicated rules and it’s very easy to get it wrong.
Because she admitted responsibility quickly any penalty will be small maybe just interest due on underpayment.

As for professionals, these days they make very sure that any liability lands with the client, any instructions are always confirmed in writing

ronib

A careless error from someone who just happens to be the Minister for Housing? Doesn’t she know that there’s a government helpline phone number to ring? How is this possible? Even I have phoned them in the past.

Her own Govt also have easy read pages about such things. I posted link yesterday.

ronib

A careless error from someone who just happens to be the Minister for Housing? Doesn’t she know that there’s a government helpline phone number to ring? How is this possible? Even I have phoned them in the past.

They don't always know, as a Tax Officer at HMRC told us when DH had a very high, unexpected tax bill.
It turned out it was completely wrong but it cost us £500 to get it sorted out.

One point which comes over loud and clear is that if an MP, Secretary of State for Housing and Deputy Prime Minister, does not understand the rules and regulations regarding second homes, trusts and stamp duty when she and her fellow MPs are the ones who make the rules, what hope have ordinary members of the public to understand what is correct?

A careless error from someone who just happens to be the Minister for Housing? Doesn’t she know that there’s a government helpline phone number to ring? How is this possible? Even I have phoned them in the past.

It’s highly likely that a careless error over the trust fund was the cause of this tax underpayment. The expert that confirmed that an error had been made advised AR to own up and accept responsibility and whatever penalty.

To her credit she didn’t try to wriggle out of it

This is all geting a bit muddled as there are two threads running on the same subject but I’ll post this here.

I think it’s becoming clearer what happened. It’s been revealed that Rayner used a firm of Licenced Conveyancers (not solicitors) in Herne Bay to deal with the Hove apartment purchase. They competed the SDLT1 on her behalf based on what she told them.

thenegotiator.co.uk/news/regulation-law-news/angela-rayners-conveyancers-deny-giving-tax-advice-report/

She didn’t, at the time, understand that her fomer share in the Ashton property, although now in trust, was still deemed hers for SDLT purposes because her son is still under 18. It’s all gone wrong from there.

If one looks at the guidance for completing the SDLT1:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sdlt-guide-for-completing-paper-sdlt1-return/guide-for-completing-paper-sdlt1-returns

Question 1 Residential — additional properties: Is where the purchase of a residential property results in you owning more than one residential property …

If someone starts from the premise that they don’t own two properties, then they are unlikely to proceed to the notes which explain about higher rates of SDLT for additional residential properties.

Had she read the notes - which discuss buying on behalf of a trust where a beneficiary is under 18 - something might have clicked about the implications of giving part and selling part of a property to a trust in which her minor son is a beneficiary.

I can genuinely see how this error occurred but I would have hoped that a senior Government Minister would have been more thorough in her attention to this. IMO, as more facts have emerged, I do think she has been careless and HMRC may well impose a penalty on top of the additional tax and interest on late payment to reflect that.

Is it enough to make her lose her job? I don’t think so but I do think it's embarrassing for all concerned. I can’t see any deliberate breaches of Nolan. People are fallible. I think it’s unfair to have expected her to be an expert in these matters. What I would have expected is that she employ professionals and use them better: an efficent PA, a good solicitor and tax accountant at the very least, people who are familiar with her financial and legal affairs, not just employed for one-off transactions. Working at a senior level requires delegation. She should know to ask someone to research the legal and financial position on something and expect them to do a thorough job. Rayner knows she is constantly under the microscope and any slip will be pounced upon by her detractors. She should have been more careful.

What started as a story about the alleged hypocrisy of owning a holiday home has turned into a story about a Minister’s carelessness over a tax return. But this is a very different situation to Nadhim Zahawi’s, not just in the sum involved but in that he had failed to declare that he had been under investigation by HMRC for some time over the YouGov shares he had put in an offshore account. In that respect he definitely did breach Nolan.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68999222

I won’t shout you down surfsup. I agree with you.

surfsup

Don’t shout me down but I’m actually feeling sorry for AR. It’s looking more and more like she’s being forced out. I’m not defending anything she’s done (if she has) but she obviously has enemies.

I agree.

Don’t shout me down but I’m actually feeling sorry for AR. It’s looking more and more like she’s being forced out. I’m not defending anything she’s done (if she has) but she obviously has enemies.

I liked and respected GSM and she gave excellent advice and helped many of us. I don't know if the Trouser thread was the start of her downfall but though she had a strong character she was never rude to another poster so I really don't know what caused the ban.

escaped

Iam64

I liked GSM. I very much doubt she was banned solely because of her remarks about Angela Raynor

I think you and I were singing from the same hymn sheet on this last June 2024. I'm not saying too much because I had a wrist-slap at the time, and then had enormous trouble getting back onto GN. But a new poster or an old poster with a new name appeared, rejoicing that GSM had finally gone because she was always nit-picking and upsetting the apple cart on threads. So how did the new poster who just joined have all the back info?
Sorry, but I think it was quite sinister, and that reporting had been going on a while.

Yes, I thought there were sinister goings-on too.

It's odd because I don't remember GSM making personal attacks on others although plenty were made to her.

fancythat

^On the Nicky Campbell show this morning, he made the point he’d asked three legal experts the same question, each gave different responses.
^

This is partly what bothers me about the law at the moment.

How come someone can go to court.
The person for example loses.
They go to a higher court. They lose.
They go to a higher court and then win?

Makes no sense to me.
I find it bothering.

Because lower courts interpret the law differently, or as we have seen in the US are politically biased.

That’s not a pro Trump comment because it’s quite clear judges on both sides are biased

Kandinsky which ‘lefties’ do you say are falling over themselves to defend Angela Raynor. Your politics and mine are different. I’m looking for the outcome of a detailed investigation. If I’m defending anything, it’s calm, clinical investigation that clarifies this unedifying situation.
I’ve not defended tax avoidance or evasion. I’ve objected to some extremely nasty personal comments

^On the Nicky Campbell show this morning, he made the point he’d asked three legal experts the same question, each gave different responses.
^

This is partly what bothers me about the law at the moment.

How come someone can go to court.
The person for example loses.
They go to a higher court. They lose.
They go to a higher court and then win?

Makes no sense to me.
I find it bothering.

I wonder if all the lefties falling over themselves to defend Angela Rayner would be doing the same if it was a Tory MP?

Iam64

I liked GSM. I very much doubt she was banned solely because of her remarks about Angela Raynor

I think you and I were singing from the same hymn sheet on this last June 2024. I'm not saying too much because I had a wrist-slap at the time, and then had enormous trouble getting back onto GN. But a new poster or an old poster with a new name appeared, rejoicing that GSM had finally gone because she was always nit-picking and upsetting the apple cart on threads. So how did the new poster who just joined have all the back info?
Sorry, but I think it was quite sinister, and that reporting had been going on a while.

growstuff

Bea65

Why doesn’t she pay the £40K and if innocent, claim it back

From what I've read, she is in the process of paying the money to HMRC. She only found out very recently that she owed it.

If the investigation finds that it was deliberate evasion there will be a penalty imposed and that could be several times the amount unpaid.
Zahawi got away with a 30% surcharge because it was deemed “careless”

Iam64

I liked GSM. I very much doubt she was banned solely because of her remarks about Angela Raynor

I think GSM was banned later but had possibly had a warning from that other thread.

Bea65

Why doesn’t she pay the £40K and if innocent, claim it back

From what I've read, she is in the process of paying the money to HMRC. She only found out very recently that she owed it.

Why doesn’t she pay the £40K and if innocent, claim it back