Rayner ha consultato tre persone prima dell’acquisto piatto
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxzj2qq1lno?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss
di GeoWa
Rayner ha consultato tre persone prima dell’acquisto piatto
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxzj2qq1lno?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss
di GeoWa
28 commenti
And all 3 professionals were so ignorant or unqualified that they didn’t know what is written in the basic guidance that everyone consults for SDLT?
Doubt
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property
I feel like if you consult three experts on something that will save you money but is relatively clear from a Google search can’t happen and they each give you the wrong answer, it’s probably more likely you gave them selectively wrong information rather than them all being idiots.
I dunno. I started this week thinking this was the biggest nothing burger I’ve ever heard, and I’m now expecting by Friday to learn she successfully ran a drug and brothel empire from there and the press are only finding out now.
I don’t have it in for Angela Rayner, far from it. But if as a normal working person I made a mistake on my tax return, regardless of any advice, HMRC would come for me and throw the book at me. Why should a politician get different treatment?
They seem to be unable to admit that it really does not matter how many people she consulted or whether the advice was good or bad; that’s really not the issue. Its the hypocrisy.
Labour MPs including Rayner lined up to condemn Rishi Sunak when it came out that his wife was using her non-dom status to legally avoid paying millions in UK tax. The line was clear: it doesn’t matter if it’s legal, it’s ethically wrong, it shows poor judgment, and it undermines public trust. Fair enough and a lot of people (ie; Voters) agreed.
But now Angela Rayner gets caught doing the same thing – exploiting a legal quirk to pay less tax than most people in her situation would – and suddenly it’s all ‘she followed the rules’ and ‘she had legal advice’. That’s literally the same defence Sunak used about his wife but apparently was not good enough. If Labour’s position is that legality is not enough, that politicians should be held to a higher standard, then Rayner clearly fails that test too.
One rule for thee and another for me!
If that’s the case then She clearly tried to “pull a fast one” & get away without paying the full amount.
I really do believe that this is typical of people in politics who try to bend the rules in their favour & once they get caught out put the blame on others around them, She’s caught “bang to rights” time to do the right thing & resign.
We’re all getting distracted by these guys that think owning 3 houses in the UK is a big deal
What do we fucking want … all out leaders live in council houses and are broke like the rest of you?
Regardless of legality, as a Labour party politician you shouldn’t be seeking to minimise your tax, you should be proud of the amount you pay to support the country.
If she hadn’t been so gobby about following the rules and highlighting others errors, I don’t think she would be getting so much flak
Our housing minister has no idea how the taxes surrounding house sales work
… Just let that sink in
Rayner will doubtless be able to show the advice she was given saying she needed to pay the lower rate of stamp duty.
If so this is a non-story.
She been taking legal advice from Jonathan Reynolds or something?
This is such a non story. I’m not even a fan of this government or Angela Rayner but the amount of attention this is getting is ridiculous.
Complex tax law?
It’s really not that complex, the situation is as described here: [https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm09815](https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/stamp-duty-land-tax-manual/sdltm09815)
And if she and the advisors she consulted couldn’t figure that out, then she has very questionable competence to a) be a trustee of a trust, b) have any responsibility for housing policy, c) have any input into tax policy or d) be in a position to appoint advisors.
Just shows how every advisor does it’s best to advise borderline tax evasion.
She will argue that what she did was legal
That’s irrelevant – it’s tax evasion.
Her position isn’t tenable.
Broke two commandments: Thou shalt evade blame / Thou shalt not apologise
She’s lying. How do I know that? her lips are moving. Investigate for tax evasion and prosecute.
The blow by blows on this story are getting a little ridiculous now.
Did she also have a cheese sandwich that day? That would be proof of incontrovertible insanity.
She made a career out of attacking Tories for not paying the maximum amount of tax, indeed, the line was tax avoidance costs lives. She avoided tax. If your whole claim to fame is castigating those poshos for not paying the fair amount of tax then you better be bloody squeaky clean yourself.
Funny how you can call HMRC directly and ask them what tax rate you have to pay on your stamp duty when buying a property. I know because I did.
As a financial adviser I find this a bit tiresome. If this is a genuine mistake I.e she hired experts as stated and they told her x advice then this is a nothing story and she will pay the correct tax with HMRC.
The likelihood is she hired a financial adviser/mortgage adviser for the mortgage. She has then hired experts on trusts (probably at the behest of the financial adviser) and a solicitor, it is up to them to provide her with the correct advice. All of these people will have charged her fees for their expertise/advice.
Is anyone on this thread honestly saying that if you took advice from multiple people, and on the result of that advice, you paid the figure they advised that should lose your job as a consequence of those experts being wrong?
There is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance and there is a further difference still at following advice that turns out to be incorrect – which would be neither tax avoidance or tax evasion as both of them require knowledge of the action prior to doing so.
Regardless of the detail behind it, she was trying to use a tax loophole to avoid paying the correct tax. Something that she has criticised (deservingly) many other people for doing.
The fact that she in the sec of state for housing and was trying to avoid paying the correct stamp duty is terrible. It’s like when she criticised Rishi Sunak when he was the chancellor of the exchequer and his wife was a Nom Dom. regardless of if it’s ‘legal’, it’s immoral for someone in those positions.
Fiddling, whilst Rome burns springs to mind. She is a hypocrite, and called others scum for less. This really should be her Waterloo. Rules for thee, but not for me. Absolute gridting disgrace.
Now without taking any side politically and being objective the question we need to ask here is why three people?
That indicates she was unsure of the position and it was highly likely she received conflicting advice. If not conflicting advice then the first two were uncertain. This is not a good look because if there was clearly conflicting or uncertain advice the obvious course of action would be to consult an actual expert. Given her position within government and the amount of money involved the question moves to why didn’t she do that?
The only logical conclusion here is that she thought she could get away with not doing that. In that case her position is no longer tenable. That is unless whoever gave her the incorrect legal advice admits to making the mistake.
It should also be noted that things aren’t looking good for Labour in her constituency and the move was allegedly part of parachuting her into a safe seat. Note the use of word allegedly.
I still think this being newsworthy is ridiculous. Get it sorted fine but there are MUCH more important things to criticise
I hate Rayner, but I hate petty party politics more. Calling on her to resign for what appears to be an honest mistake in a highly complex area of tax, during what was likely a very stressful set of personal circumstances, is just a shit way to do politics. Attack her for her policy ideas, not this.
I feel for Ms Rayner who at best had no idea but who also may also genuinely have assumed she would get away with anything that’s wasn’t quite right because of the « confidentiality » order. That technique has enabled millions of public money to be transferred to private BVI accounts, when this was something using her money to assure the future of a disabled child.