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.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
Huh. That does suggest she had no idea about the rules, so either a genuine mistake or the worst tax evasion ploy ever.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
Lawyers keep records/paper trails.
Indeed. The lesson from this is to employ a single firm, competent across the domains (trusts, tax etc) that you need. Get their advice. Then get them to implement it. That way there is no you said/i said ambiguity and you are definitely covered by their indemnities.
If she had done that, she could have asked the lawyers to issue a statement on both their behalf *and hers*. On the same side....
But if she’d have done that she’d have been landed with another £40k tax bill, and probably a higher interest rate on the mortgage as a result of the lower deposit.
But she would have her higher paid job as well. I've never felt I lost money getting advice from real experts.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
You have been very robust too. Don't underestimate the reach of PB. A very big win for PB Tories.
You're quite rare on here - clearly left wing but much less tribal than some - you at least can see some of the faults on your own side!
Maybe it's me but I quite liked having a gobby outspoken northerner as DPM.
I'll miss Angela Rayner. Maybe she'll be back one day................
Don't worry, Labour Deputy PMs simply regenerate. It surprised long-standing fans of the show when Prescott regenerated into Rayner, but the reboot worked quite well for a time.
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.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
I don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
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.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
The son is 17 so in less than a year she can reclaim the £40k anyway. Its hardly a massive tax fraud which she would knowingly risk her career for, it is incompetence and mostly as with many charasmatic politicians, a lack of interest in the detail.
We should stop electing the most charasmatic ones, or stop moaning when the fail to follow rules and fail to deliver good governance.
Yes, a mistake rather than tax dodging, and one I think most of us could easily make. Never been on the Ange train, I'm not looking for 'authenticity' in politicians, but it's tough on her (not to say she should have stayed, she obviously couldn't).
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.
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.
SFAICS at this moment no-one except a small number in the Rayner loop know all the relevant facts. I just wonder if it is possible that it is arguable - at an experienced professional level of KCs and top accountants - that Rayner did not owe the higher rate of duty, especially as it seems slightly counter intuitive that she did.
Every tax case that reaches the higher courts - and there are plenty - will involve two sets of lawyers (and accountants) arguing that they are right in law and the other side wrong. Might this be another or is it one of those cases where only one outcome is arguable?
I don’t like Rayner very much, but anyone who looks at the issue from top to bottom ought be sympathetic and indeed think, there but for the grace of God…
Astonishing to realise, per @kinabalu, that she can claim the bloody tax back in a few months anyway.
Anyway, who are runners and riders for next DLotLP / DPM?
An anti-corruption minister who resigned after being accused of corruption.
A homelessness minister who resigned after making people homeless.
A housing minister caught up in a tax scandal over a second home.
We're about to find out that Miliband secretly owns a big share of ExxonMobil, Cooper has a side-hustle selling RIBs in France and Reeves doesn't know much about the economy?
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
I don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
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.
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.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
Huh. That does suggest she had no idea about the rules, so either a genuine mistake or the worst tax evasion ploy ever.
Genuine mistake, I think. Nothing else makes any sense at all.
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.
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.
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
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.
Have the BBC or ITV phoned her yet about Strictly or the Jungle?
She should be straight on the phone to get a slot on Strictly 26. Ideal launch pad whether she wants the media route or political redemption. Wonder if we get Boris on there at some point too.
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
Most people but is not a huge majority. I'd guess the public split somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 between would get proper paid for advice here and would wing it based not on minimal tax but minimal interaction with complexity.
Enormous sympathy for Rayner here. Crazy that she has been forced out over this, the Magnus letter finds she acted honestly and in good faith and made a mistake. As others have noted, there for the grace of god. Had it not been for a conveyancer saying this is not tax advice one assumes he would have found otherwise.
I really think the bar to breaching the ministerial code etc needs to be a bit higher than this.
All that said, the politics for Rayner and Labour was terrible and she'd have paid the price ultimately at the hands of the electorate for her two faced hypocrisy and largesse. But that would have been an electoral judgment day in due course. I think she, and rest of us, deserved better than this for today's purposes.
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
Most people but is not a huge majority. I'd guess the public split somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 between would get proper paid for advice here and would wing it based not on minimal tax but minimal interaction with complexity.
Most people IN HER POSITION. You have to be very silly to think as a high profile government minister you can wing it. A lot of tax issued based scandal, is that people have winged it in the past and then risen to high position, and that has sunk them, as they can't erase their past indiscretions on this.
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.
You're quite right, it took effect in 2016 but I remembered it as an Osborne wheeze so assumed it was coalition.
Edit - I couldn't even spell Osborne correctly. What kind of a politics nerd makes that error?
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
I’m a nobody but felt it best to pay hundreds of pounds for tax advice when selling a home in England in a year I was seeking split year treatment (half abroad, half at home). The reason was because I did not trust HMRC.
Rayner no doubt suffers from the same disease infecting most of Westminster. Clinical arrogance. The truth will be somewhere between “don’t you know who I am! I don’t need to check” and “it’s complex, so no one will find out ”.
Bye bye Angie, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
What a horrible comment.
It's not really, Roger. Read it again. It's not even personal. Just a generic 'good riddance' expression. In the pantheon of pb comments about unfavoured pols it's not even in the top half. I'm sure if one were to go back through your comments one could find half a dozen objectively ruder/more personal/more vitriolic comments within the past six months. Or can comments only count as 'horrible' if they are about left wing politicians?
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
Most people but is not a huge majority. I'd guess the public split somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 between would get proper paid for advice here and would wing it based not on minimal tax but minimal interaction with complexity.
Most people IN HER POSITION. You have to be very silly to think as a high profile government minister you can wing it. What has happened in the past, is that people have winged it in the past and then risen to high position, and that has sunk them.
See Boris, Cummings et al. Still sticking by a about a two thirds split between can be bothered with rules if it takes extra effort and attention to do so, whatever their level of position or intelligence.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Have the BBC or ITV phoned her yet about Strictly or the Jungle?
She should be straight on the phone to get a slot on Strictly 26. Ideal launch pad whether she wants the media route or political redemption. Wonder if we get Boris on there at some point too.
We could pair them up. Frankly the professional dancers just get in the way.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
I don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
Most people but is not a huge majority. I'd guess the public split somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 between would get proper paid for advice here and would wing it based not on minimal tax but minimal interaction with complexity.
Most people IN HER POSITION. You have to be very silly to think as a high profile government minister you can wing it. A lot of tax issued based scandal, is that people have winged it in the past and then risen to high position, and that has sunk them, as they can't erase their past indiscretions on this.
Given her high-profile position and complex domestic arrangements including Trusts, the sensible thing would be use use a single firm of family lawyers for absolutely everything, such that they would have the Big Bicture and advise accordingly.
Using some random conveyancer for the new property purchase doesn’t pass the sniff test.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
I don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
This is quite an achievement for the Telegraph. Bizarre that the deputy pm has fallen in scandal and the LOTO cannot claim a jot of the credit
Nonsense. It goes in the history books as Kemi got the scalp. Perhaps first of many, as who else in Starmer’s on the take government is stealing tax payers money?
Conservatives don’t need to steal tax payers money as many are already rich, which is why it’s only Labour governments and hangers on cronies who always constantly help themselves from the till.
It's a press scalp. Just like the scalps from the expenses scandal.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
You have been very robust too. Don't underestimate the reach of PB. A very big win for PB Tories.
You're quite rare on here - clearly left wing but much less tribal than some - you at least can see some of the faults on your own side!
IIRC MexicanPete votes Lib Dem - I don't think Labour are his side?
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
This is quite an achievement for the Telegraph. Bizarre that the deputy pm has fallen in scandal and the LOTO cannot claim a jot of the credit
Nonsense. It goes in the history books as Kemi got the scalp. Perhaps first of many, as who else in Starmer’s on the take government is stealing tax payers money?
Conservatives don’t need to steal tax payers money as many are already rich, which is why it’s only Labour governments and hangers on cronies who always constantly help themselves from the till.
It's a press scalp. Just like the scalps from the expenses scandal.
This comment from miss rabbit is one of the silliest I’ve seen here, given the covid and John major years.
Have the BBC or ITV phoned her yet about Strictly or the Jungle?
She should be straight on the phone to get a slot on Strictly 26. Ideal launch pad whether she wants the media route or political redemption. Wonder if we get Boris on there at some point too.
We could pair them up. Frankly the professional dancers just get in the way.
To mix it up towards the end of the series that is a great idea.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
Lawyers keep records/paper trails.
Indeed. The lesson from this is to employ a single firm, competent across the domains (trusts, tax etc) that you need. Get their advice. Then get them to implement it. That way there is no you said/i said ambiguity and you are definitely covered by their indemnities.
If she had done that, she could have asked the lawyers to issue a statement on both their behalf *and hers*. On the same side....
But if she’d have done that she’d have been landed with another £40k tax bill, and probably a higher interest rate on the mortgage as a result of the lower deposit.
But she would have her higher paid job as well. I've never felt I lost money getting advice from real experts.
But she thought she could have no tax bill and keep the higher-paid job.
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.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
Huh. That does suggest she had no idea about the rules, so either a genuine mistake or the worst tax evasion ploy ever.
I'll go for mistake.
But it's the reaction to someone pointing out the mistake that is revealing and important. People make mistakes all the time. One of the main advantages of a democracy is that a free press enables mistakes to be identified and discussed in the open, so that they can then be fixed.
The reaction of politicians to mistakes being identified is uniformly awful. They deny, deflect and attempt to discredit the person pointing out the mistake. It's one reason so much bad law makes it to the statute book. Reasoned criticism is treated as ideological or reflexive opposition, to be ignored or steamrollered.
Take, for example, the change to landfill tax rates brought up on here recently. A government with a mature attitude to criticism would accept the damage that would do to housebuilding, correct the mistake, and move on. Instead we are likely to see ministers brush off the criticism and only a determined campaign will prevent a massive reduction in housebuilding rates.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
Sadiq Khan and Sir Keir himself have already been posited. Rachel perhaps? Weren't there rumours of animosity there that came to a head during Tear-Gate?
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.
Given her previous interesting living arrangements and the trouble that got her into, most people would think (particularly people in positions of power who have the money and contacts to access this) I better get some really good written advice on this.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
Most people but is not a huge majority. I'd guess the public split somewhere between 60/40 and 70/30 between would get proper paid for advice here and would wing it based not on minimal tax but minimal interaction with complexity.
Most people IN HER POSITION. You have to be very silly to think as a high profile government minister you can wing it. A lot of tax issued based scandal, is that people have winged it in the past and then risen to high position, and that has sunk them, as they can't erase their past indiscretions on this.
Given her high-profile position and complex domestic arrangements including Trusts, the sensible thing would be use use a single firm of family lawyers for absolutely everything, such that they would have the Big Bicture and advise accordingly.
Using some random conveyancer for the new property purchase doesn’t pass the sniff test.
I don’t think she thought the trust of which she was a trustee rather than beneficiary was an issue
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
This is quite an achievement for the Telegraph. Bizarre that the deputy pm has fallen in scandal and the LOTO cannot claim a jot of the credit
Nonsense. It goes in the history books as Kemi got the scalp. Perhaps first of many, as who else in Starmer’s on the take government is stealing tax payers money?
Conservatives don’t need to steal tax payers money as many are already rich, which is why it’s only Labour governments and hangers on cronies who always constantly help themselves from the till.
It's a press scalp. Just like the scalps from the expenses scandal.
This comment from miss rabbit is one of the silliest I’ve seen here, given the covid and John major years.
Well traditionally - and there are exceptions on both sides, but this was broadly the case last century - Conservatives did sex scandals and Labour did money scandals. So it's not a ridiculous comment. It would be interesting to see some objective analysis of whether this is still true. You have to be a lot more creative to be brought down by a sex scandal these days.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
You can vote locally in all elections provided it’s different councils. What you can’t vote for more than once is your MP because that’s a national election
An anti-corruption minister who resigned after being accused of corruption.
A homelessness minister who resigned after making people homeless.
A housing minister caught up in a tax scandal over a second home.
We're about to find out that Miliband secretly owns a big share of ExxonMobil, Cooper has a side-hustle selling RIBs in France and Reeves doesn't know much about the economy?
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
Starmer to appoint a deputy PM that isn’t deputy Labour leader.
I predict this one won’t end well.
He's going to pick Reeves isn't he? And then have to sack her on the 27th November after the bond market meltdown.
Moving Reeves to Depity PM would be one way of solving the Chancellor isn’t up to it without making it look like a complete demotion
I seem to remember that Maggie's moving Geoffrey Howe from Foreign Sec. to Deputy PM was very much seen as a humiliating demotion (Neil Kinnock offered his sympathy) and a fair bit of trouble for Maggie then ensued.
Cooper might not be a bad shout for DPM/Deputy Leader. Ticks the “is a woman” box, generally well regarded, senior and substantial, doesn’t really cause anyone to go into fits of apoplexy, stresses that dealing with immigration on the top of the agenda…
He might put her in as DPM today, with a view she campaigns for the deputy leadership too.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
To be fair to her, that was exactly what her own government’s lawyers had argued in court the previous day.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
On an unrelated matter could Wes Streeting be up for deputy leader??😂
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
The ex-husband would certainly know all the details.
Given the wording on that, the solution is simple - simply give the smugglers big boats and the small boat numbers will plumet. Maybe that's what's happened here?
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
To be fair to her, that was exactly what her own government’s lawyers had argued in court the previous day.
Yes, but someone who was any good at politics would have found a politic way of putting the lawyers back in their boxes.
Comments
Keir Starmer has managed to pick:
An anti-corruption minister who resigned after being accused of corruption.
A homelessness minister who resigned after making people homeless.
A housing minister caught up in a tax scandal over a second home.
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 like Rayner very much, but anyone who looks at the issue from top to bottom ought be sympathetic and indeed think, there but for the grace of God…
Astonishing to realise, per @kinabalu, that she can claim the bloody tax back in a few months anyway.
Anyway, who are runners and riders for next DLotLP / DPM?
And who gets the poisoned chalice of Housing?
I predict this one won’t end well.
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.
I presumed initially when the Telegraph stories start to come out she would have that as a backstop. It may then transpire there was a mistake or some wrinkle, but she would be able to wave a bit of paper that says KC Money Bags, Tax Expert of 20 years, advised me that all of this was correct.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/17/labour-suspends-diane-abbott-for-second-time-over-racism-comments
I really think the bar to breaching the ministerial code etc needs to be a bit higher than this.
All that said, the politics for Rayner and Labour was terrible and she'd have paid the price ultimately at the hands of the electorate for her two faced hypocrisy and largesse. But that would have been an electoral judgment day in due course. I think she, and rest of us, deserved better than this for today's purposes.
Edit - I couldn't even spell Osborne correctly. What kind of a politics nerd makes that error?
Rayner no doubt suffers from the same disease infecting most of Westminster. Clinical arrogance. The truth will be somewhere between “don’t you know who I am! I don’t need to check” and “it’s complex, so no one will find out ”.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Using some random conveyancer for the new property purchase doesn’t pass the sniff test.
(sorry - just in case nobody had)
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
https://houseprices.io/?q=NW3+7BG
Have they changed the rules since then?
Do as I say, not as I do.
But it's the reaction to someone pointing out the mistake that is revealing and important. People make mistakes all the time. One of the main advantages of a democracy is that a free press enables mistakes to be identified and discussed in the open, so that they can then be fixed.
The reaction of politicians to mistakes being identified is uniformly awful. They deny, deflect and attempt to discredit the person pointing out the mistake. It's one reason so much bad law makes it to the statute book. Reasoned criticism is treated as ideological or reflexive opposition, to be ignored or steamrollered.
Take, for example, the change to landfill tax rates brought up on here recently. A government with a mature attitude to criticism would accept the damage that would do to housebuilding, correct the mistake, and move on. Instead we are likely to see ministers brush off the criticism and only a determined campaign will prevent a massive reduction in housebuilding rates.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
He might put her in as DPM today, with a view she campaigns for the deputy leadership too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6xe5d6103o
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"