They have declined to comment this morning beyond saying they don’t comment on an individual’s tax affairs.
She’s obvs had this up her sleeve for months.
What an UFH of an individual
I somehow doubt a council tax query qualifies for pre or post-transaction clearance.
She tried to evade. Got found out. Had to pay the additional tax, just didn’t get fined. Not exactly a full exoneration.
heh another 1 in the eye 4 rof’s assorted britain-h7ers
"I somehow doubt a council tax query qualifies for pre or post-transaction clearance."
Have you tried ringing the council?
Perhaps they can now respond to my letters about the client they are saying didn’t pay despite me having sent them the money myself.
HOW CAN SHE BE FORGIVEN FOR NOT INSTRUCTING A TAX KC TO DO YER FLAT CONVEYANCING?!?
THIS ISN’T A TRIVIALITY LIKE SECRETLY POCKETING £5 MILLION FROM A FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRE!!
I wonder if Ange doth protest too much.
She says she has been exonerated "of the accusation that I deliberately sought to avoid tax". Which still leaves the possibility that she was "careless" and so still liable for a lower level of penalty.
But then she says "I was advised by experts that I should pay stamp duty at the standard rate...I took reasonable care and acted in good faith, based on the expert advice I received, and HMRC has accepted this."
But the reporting makes clear:
"Following the scrutiny around her tax affairs, Rayner said last autumn she sought advice from a senior lawyer and admitted that she should have paid the higher rate on the home.
She then referred herself to the prime minister's ethics adviser, who concluded that Rayner "acted with integrity" but had breached the ministerial code.
The adviser also said she did get legal advice when buying the property, but failed to seek further expert tax advice as recommended."
So either the adviser is wrong or Ange is still telling porkies.
Bit of a nothing burger really. Especially compared with what Nige has been up to.
‘I was cleared’
‘I paid an extra 40k in tax’
I was cleared of the accusation that I acted without integrity
I have paid the requisite amount of tax.
FTFY
jesus, who cares. Look at farage ffas.
I’d be supportive of a Government service which audits all MPs tax affairs and tells them what to pay in advance. Inclusive of all candidates. Would cost fook all in context.
Just wondering why a Manchester MP needs an £800,000 flat in a chi chi part of Hove.
Complete nothingburger.
Just wondering why you think that’s any of your business Sceppy?
I'll say it again but really don't understand why politicians aren't extra cautious when it comes to this stuff and pay the maximum they might need to pay to avoid any problems later.
Just wondering why you think that’s any of your business Sceppy?
humani nil a me alienum puto
Disgraceful, reported.
Just wondering why a Manchester MP needs an £800,000 flat in a chi chi part of Hove.
EXACTLY!!
THIS ISN'T LIKE A MULTI-PROPERTY OWNING CLACTON MP BUYING AN £800,000 HOUSE IN CLACTON ONLY IT TURNED OUT HIS PARTNER BOUGHT IT SUPPOSEDLY WITH HER FAMILY'S WEALTH - MEANING SHE PAID THE LOWER RATE OF STAMP DUTY UNLIKE IF HE HAD BOUGHT "HIS" HOUSE - ONLY IT TURNS OUT THERE IS NO FAMILY WEALTH AND HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN SECRETLY GIVEN £5 MILLION BY A FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRE!!
THIS IS ANGELA RAYNER WHO IS COMMON AND A WOMAN!!
what BB said.
She needs a separate flat Scep because the main house causing this issue is being used by her disabled son (it’s been adjusted for his needs). Feel bad now?
A DISABLED SON?!?
HOW VERY CONVENIENT!!
No, because in child PI cases the parents still own the house outright. There's obviously a tax arrangement and someone has effed up somewhere.
Also I'm still not sure what Hove has to do with anything. If I'm working in (say) Nottingham I don't rent in Lincoln.
The son has since turned 17 anyway, had she known she might have waited a few months and this wouldn't have been a story.
If HMRC doesn't think she should be penalised, do they, with all of the facts having investigated, think it was a mistake?
18
Of course, the SDLT was never the real issue, which was extracting funds from the trust of her disabled child to fund her Hove flat purchase.
She’s dodgy af ffs
Of course, the SDLT was never the real issue
WHY OF COURSE!!
OF COURSE!!
WE NEED TO KEEP THIS IMPORTANT STORY GOING AND IGNORE TRIVIAL GOSSIP ABOUT MILLIONS BEING SECRETLY FUNNELLED TO FARAGE BY FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRES INFLUENCING BRITISH POLITICS!!
When will this fvcking madness end?
I MUST SAY I AM VERY CROSS WITH HMRC THOUGH!!
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?!?
Farage's girlfriend recently said "There’s more than one way to pay for a house.”
How does HMRC tax that.
Immigrants again, doing the jobs the locals won't do.
Are you thick Scep? The issue is because the house is in a trust for her son, but the rules say you look through that until he’s 18 and it’s deemed to be the settlor’s house for SDLT purposes. I didn’t know that and I doubt 99% of other people didn’t.
The issue is because the house is in a trust for her son, but the rules say you look through that until he’s 18 and it’s deemed to be the settlor’s house for SDLT purposes. I didn’t know that and I doubt 99% of other people didn’t.
AND THIS IS WHY YOU INSTRUCT A TAX KC TO DO YOUR FLAT CONVEYANCING LIKE A NORMAL PERSON!!
If there's no penalty then presumably HMRC doesn't think it can/should argue that Rayner was at least careless:
I am deeply opposed to her politics but I'm struggling to get up any indignation about her behaviour here.
Yep they agreed she wasn’t careless so no fine. Completely exonerated.
Even Dan Neidle has said that the usual definition of "careless" includes failing to take tax advice when advised to do so.
He is now calling shenanigans.
Wot Sven said. The valuation used on the sale of her stake in the property to her son's trust is fishier than a haddock's underpants.
Who cares? It’s the son’s settlement money being used. Oh no a 10% premium has gone to Ange. Thing of the mega insurance co shareholders :(
SJH I think you misread (or more likely) are deliberately misrepresenting what Neidle said. He says relying on legal advice is a DEFENCE to careless (unless the advice is heavily caveated). She had conveyancers and trust law lawyers saying no SDLT was due but with the usual lazy footnote that she may want to get specialist advice. HMRC seems to have agreed it was reasonable not to get further advice so relying on the initial advice meant she was not careless.
Who cares? It’s the son’s settlement money being used. Oh no a 10% premium has gone to Ange. Thing of the mega insurance co shareholders :(
Yes, bugger ethics eh. And fvck knows what the insurance company shareholder comment was supposed to mean.
Tried it on. Paid the fine and the tax. It's the same as Zahawi so any trots trying to defend it are also agreeing he did nothing wrong (and can't w**k on about rich people avoiding tax generally).
And here's what Dan Neidle actually said
The legal test is whether Ms Rayner failed to take the care a "prudent and reasonable person in her position" would have taken. The leading caselaw is clear that you can rely on professional advice – but not where it is "hedged about with substantial caveats"
It is hard to see how a taxpayer, undertaking a complex transaction involving a court-ordered trust for a disabled child and the purchase of a second property, and twice told to obtain specialist tax advice, can be said to have taken reasonable care by not doing so.
It's the same as Zahawi
IT’S THE SAME AS ZAHAWI!!
ANGELA RAYNER DIDN’T INSTRUCT A TAX KC TO DO HER FLAT CONVEYANCING!!
IT’S THE SAME AS ZAHAWI!!
Indeed if I went completely made and decided to become an MP and was doing anything other than the most simple of house buying and selling I would get gold plated advice from an SDLT specialist to ensure it didn't bite me later. I wouldn't think my solicitor says it's too complex for them to be sure but I'll just go with what I think is payable even though I know even less about it.
She had conveyancers and trust law lawyers saying no SDLT was due but with the usual lazy footnote that she may want to get specialist advice. HMRC seems to have agreed it was reasonable not to get further advice so relying on the initial advice meant she was not careless.
I CAN SAY - HAND ON HEART AS IF I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!! - THAT I WOULD HAVE READ THE FOOTNOTE AND IMMEDIATELY GONE OUT AND INSTRUCTED A TAX KC!!
Has she just sucker punched Party Wes?
The horror
Do HMRC 'clear' you? Or do they just consider a particular matter closed assuming she has paid the tax and any fines?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/seeking-clearance-or-approval-for-a-transaction
They have declined to comment this morning beyond saying they don’t comment on an individual’s tax affairs.
She’s obvs had this up her sleeve for months.
What an UFH of an individual
I somehow doubt a council tax query qualifies for pre or post-transaction clearance.
She tried to evade. Got found out. Had to pay the additional tax, just didn’t get fined. Not exactly a full exoneration.
heh another 1 in the eye 4 rof’s assorted britain-h7ers
"I somehow doubt a council tax query qualifies for pre or post-transaction clearance."
Have you tried ringing the council?
Perhaps they can now respond to my letters about the client they are saying didn’t pay despite me having sent them the money myself.
HOW CAN SHE BE FORGIVEN FOR NOT INSTRUCTING A TAX KC TO DO YER FLAT CONVEYANCING?!?
THIS ISN’T A TRIVIALITY LIKE SECRETLY POCKETING £5 MILLION FROM A FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRE!!
I wonder if Ange doth protest too much.
She says she has been exonerated "of the accusation that I deliberately sought to avoid tax". Which still leaves the possibility that she was "careless" and so still liable for a lower level of penalty.
But then she says "I was advised by experts that I should pay stamp duty at the standard rate...I took reasonable care and acted in good faith, based on the expert advice I received, and HMRC has accepted this."
But the reporting makes clear:
"Following the scrutiny around her tax affairs, Rayner said last autumn she sought advice from a senior lawyer and admitted that she should have paid the higher rate on the home.
She then referred herself to the prime minister's ethics adviser, who concluded that Rayner "acted with integrity" but had breached the ministerial code.
The adviser also said she did get legal advice when buying the property, but failed to seek further expert tax advice as recommended."
So either the adviser is wrong or Ange is still telling porkies.
Bit of a nothing burger really. Especially compared with what Nige has been up to.
‘I was cleared’
‘I paid an extra 40k in tax’
I was cleared of the accusation that I acted without integrity
I have paid the requisite amount of tax.
FTFY
jesus, who cares. Look at farage ffas.
I’d be supportive of a Government service which audits all MPs tax affairs and tells them what to pay in advance. Inclusive of all candidates. Would cost fook all in context.
Just wondering why a Manchester MP needs an £800,000 flat in a chi chi part of Hove.
Complete nothingburger.
Just wondering why you think that’s any of your business Sceppy?
I'll say it again but really don't understand why politicians aren't extra cautious when it comes to this stuff and pay the maximum they might need to pay to avoid any problems later.
humani nil a me alienum puto
Disgraceful, reported.
EXACTLY!!
THIS ISN'T LIKE A MULTI-PROPERTY OWNING CLACTON MP BUYING AN £800,000 HOUSE IN CLACTON ONLY IT TURNED OUT HIS PARTNER BOUGHT IT SUPPOSEDLY WITH HER FAMILY'S WEALTH - MEANING SHE PAID THE LOWER RATE OF STAMP DUTY UNLIKE IF HE HAD BOUGHT "HIS" HOUSE - ONLY IT TURNS OUT THERE IS NO FAMILY WEALTH AND HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN SECRETLY GIVEN £5 MILLION BY A FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRE!!
THIS IS ANGELA RAYNER WHO IS COMMON AND A WOMAN!!
what BB said.
She needs a separate flat Scep because the main house causing this issue is being used by her disabled son (it’s been adjusted for his needs). Feel bad now?
A DISABLED SON?!?
HOW VERY CONVENIENT!!
No, because in child PI cases the parents still own the house outright. There's obviously a tax arrangement and someone has effed up somewhere.
Also I'm still not sure what Hove has to do with anything. If I'm working in (say) Nottingham I don't rent in Lincoln.
The son has since turned 17 anyway, had she known she might have waited a few months and this wouldn't have been a story.
If HMRC doesn't think she should be penalised, do they, with all of the facts having investigated, think it was a mistake?
18
Of course, the SDLT was never the real issue, which was extracting funds from the trust of her disabled child to fund her Hove flat purchase.
She’s dodgy af ffs
WHY OF COURSE!!
OF COURSE!!
WE NEED TO KEEP THIS IMPORTANT STORY GOING AND IGNORE TRIVIAL GOSSIP ABOUT MILLIONS BEING SECRETLY FUNNELLED TO FARAGE BY FOREIGN BASED CRYPTO BILLIONAIRES INFLUENCING BRITISH POLITICS!!
When will this fvcking madness end?
I MUST SAY I AM VERY CROSS WITH HMRC THOUGH!!
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?!?
Farage's girlfriend recently said "There’s more than one way to pay for a house.”
How does HMRC tax that.
Immigrants again, doing the jobs the locals won't do.
Are you thick Scep? The issue is because the house is in a trust for her son, but the rules say you look through that until he’s 18 and it’s deemed to be the settlor’s house for SDLT purposes. I didn’t know that and I doubt 99% of other people didn’t.
AND THIS IS WHY YOU INSTRUCT A TAX KC TO DO YOUR FLAT CONVEYANCING LIKE A NORMAL PERSON!!
If there's no penalty then presumably HMRC doesn't think it can/should argue that Rayner was at least careless:
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch81140
I am deeply opposed to her politics but I'm struggling to get up any indignation about her behaviour here.
Yep they agreed she wasn’t careless so no fine. Completely exonerated.
Even Dan Neidle has said that the usual definition of "careless" includes failing to take tax advice when advised to do so.
He is now calling shenanigans.
Wot Sven said. The valuation used on the sale of her stake in the property to her son's trust is fishier than a haddock's underpants.
Who cares? It’s the son’s settlement money being used. Oh no a 10% premium has gone to Ange. Thing of the mega insurance co shareholders :(
SJH I think you misread (or more likely) are deliberately misrepresenting what Neidle said. He says relying on legal advice is a DEFENCE to careless (unless the advice is heavily caveated). She had conveyancers and trust law lawyers saying no SDLT was due but with the usual lazy footnote that she may want to get specialist advice. HMRC seems to have agreed it was reasonable not to get further advice so relying on the initial advice meant she was not careless.
Who cares? It’s the son’s settlement money being used. Oh no a 10% premium has gone to Ange. Thing of the mega insurance co shareholders :(
Yes, bugger ethics eh. And fvck knows what the insurance company shareholder comment was supposed to mean.
Tried it on. Paid the fine and the tax. It's the same as Zahawi so any trots trying to defend it are also agreeing he did nothing wrong (and can't w**k on about rich people avoiding tax generally).
And here's what Dan Neidle actually said
The legal test is whether Ms Rayner failed to take the care a "prudent and reasonable person in her position" would have taken. The leading caselaw is clear that you can rely on professional advice – but not where it is "hedged about with substantial caveats"
It is hard to see how a taxpayer, undertaking a complex transaction involving a court-ordered trust for a disabled child and the purchase of a second property, and twice told to obtain specialist tax advice, can be said to have taken reasonable care by not doing so.
IT’S THE SAME AS ZAHAWI!!
ANGELA RAYNER DIDN’T INSTRUCT A TAX KC TO DO HER FLAT CONVEYANCING!!
IT’S THE SAME AS ZAHAWI!!
Indeed if I went completely made and decided to become an MP and was doing anything other than the most simple of house buying and selling I would get gold plated advice from an SDLT specialist to ensure it didn't bite me later. I wouldn't think my solicitor says it's too complex for them to be sure but I'll just go with what I think is payable even though I know even less about it.
I CAN SAY - HAND ON HEART AS IF I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!! - THAT I WOULD HAVE READ THE FOOTNOTE AND IMMEDIATELY GONE OUT AND INSTRUCTED A TAX KC!!
Join the discussion