Best Of

Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.

The sympathy well is bone dry.

I've been away so catching up on this story.

I think I disagree on both of your counts.

The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.

She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.

So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.

So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.

AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.

To be fair to her, if I had moved in 2015 as we intended (in the end we stayed put) I would also have been caught out by this. It would never occur to me that as Trustee for my daughters selling my home and buying another would have made me liable for Stamp Duty at the higher rate, and I would have answered 'No' to the question asked by the Conveyancer 'Do you own any other property'?

Having said that I'm not a senior politician. If you are you have to be squeaky-clean (which means attention to detail), and if you aren't, then that's on you. So she had to go. It might be unfair, but that's politics.

I don't believe there was the extra stamp duty in 2015, thought it was a fairly recent Tory wheeze.

I appreciate this isn't the main focus of discussion right now, but a quick flag update from Manchester City Centre: there are quite a lot of union flags look to have been tied by cable ties quite some way up lamp posts - so look unofficial but some effort has gone in, especially given the relatively conspicuous (and territorially quite surprising) location - along with a smattering of various rainbow and/or trans flags, affixed in the same way, often to the same lamp post, possibly by the same person.
I find this oddly cheering for reasons I can't put my finger on.

Would be a a slightly disconcerting outcome if the Union Flag becomes the symbol of the woke left, particularly up here.

There's already some discussion by cyclists of flying St George's off the back of the pannier rack to deter aggressive drivers.

I quite like the merging of the two. You shouldn't have to be woke to be fine with the gays. You shouldn't have to be right-wing to be fine with the British.

Way back when Ken Livingstone was mayor of London, the Rugby World Cup was happening - the one where Johnnie Wilkinson came to national prominence with his kicking, IIRC.

TfL announced that any Black Cab driver that flew the England flag would lose their license.

A driver, who was actually black, pushed back by flying the England flag on his cab. When interviewed on TV, he was very articulate - his point was that the flag is a powerful symbol. Either you abandon it to the scum, or you take it back. You can't get rid of its power. IIRC he mentioned how the word "queer" had been adopted by the gay community to take it away from the homophobes. He said that he felt English and wanted to take back the flag.

Shortly after that, TfL reversed the policy on the flags.

Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.

The sympathy well is bone dry.

I've been away so catching up on this story.

I think I disagree on both of your counts.

The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.

She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.

So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.

Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.

As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?

No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.

See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.

Most people don’t do it because they either know they’ve got more than one property or they don’t. For the huge majority; they’re buying their new home and selling their old one. So of course they won’t forensically analyse it or seek expert advice because the basic SDLT rules apply to them and it’s all very simple to follow.

I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.

OK but 'buying a their new home and selling their old one' is exactly what she did AIUI.

She sold her remaining stake in the old home so the new one would be the only property ownership she had. Perhaps she got some advice of some sort to do this so that the penalty tax rate, they thought, wouldn't apply.

Well if she did get that advice, she didn’t produce it!

And she sold her personal stake, but the trust retained an interest in the property. I don’t think it’s a straightforward arrangement, and I do think it’s reasonable to do further diligence in that scenario.

She obviously thought it was a good wheeze to sell her share to the trust , get a big deposit and then be able to buy a house as her only home. Then tinkering with council tax etc. Given her position she must have known it looked a bit dodgy and should be checked out thoroughly.