one thing's for sure, given their obsession thus far, there are four or five newspapers who won't let this drop until she's gone

So what

It’s not like they are honest actors

If Rayner shows the authorities the advice from a tax expert. Then there is no case to answer, let’s move on.

I’m sure the rabid right wing press will understand and explain the nuance

... or (as I suspect) legal advice based on incorrect (or incomplete) information/instructions from the client.

and from a very complex and difficult personal situation too.

It's a nothing burger when you know the details, she wouldn't risk her career for saving a bit on stamp duty. the media establishment hate Rayner, a strong working class woman, mother at 16, raising a child with learning disabilities, despite it all she made it all the way to Deputy PM.

'Incorrect legal advice' from a firm specialising in wealth protection? In that case, she should sue.

Does her statement say they specialise in this? Might just have been conveyancers

That tells you which firm created the trust for the Ashton home, not which did the conveyancing for the Hove home - though if it was the same firm they should have flagged this It would be expensive to use Shoosmiths to buy a flat. Although cheaper than getting a tax KC to clean up afterwards

She got a bleedin' good deal if she got all of this lot for £800K.

It's actually that rubber bin bottom left. 🤷‍♀️

😂 That did cross my mind.

That would be westminister

It is the conveyance lawyer that takes the various money in, pay the to stamp duty and the vendor etc. one of issues is they aren't the sharpest lawyers if do mainly house sales

Surely she wouldn't deliberately try to fiddle her tax knowing the scrutiny under which the RW press and others follow her? (Even if she was so inclined.)

Not sure the nuance will be heard in the outpouring of rage

Certainly wouldn't be the best moment to lose one of the few cabinet members capable of acting & talking like a human being.

I think you can have some sympathy with her position, but with how much of a distraction this will continue to be, she’ll be gone in the next few days. Feels like it’s something that she could come back from though after a spell out of the spotlight

It’s a shame, but ultimately an avoidable problem on which she should have shown better judgement and more risk aversion. I mean, it should have been no surprise to her what the right wing press would have done if there was an error here, as has been proven. Sure she feels pretty bad in hindsight

Do you think a right wing politician would feel similarly contrite and consider resignation over such a matter? Or even that they should?

They probably wouldn’t feel any contrition, although they probably should resign. If you don’t set precedent it’s a race to the bottom, unfortunately

If it were proven that she had deliberately avoided paying a due tax then I would agree. But I don’t think it’s proven that this was other than an honest mistake and one based on, maybe, erroneous legal advice. Has it? I’d be interested in Dan Neidle’s views on this matter.

Thank you. I guess there will be full transparency now she has referred herself to the parliamentary authorities.

Yes. I have massive sympathy for her and surely most people would in the circumstances.

Whole Rayner story, together with the stuff about the Farage house in Clacton, just shows how daft a tax stamp duty is. And why are we trying through stamp duty and council tax on second homes to "ration" housing consumption when we don't have that approach to other goods and services ?

It would appear she has done nothing wrong other than the initial legal advice was given to her was incorect in what is a complex situation. As long as she corrects the error with HMRC I see no reason why she should resign it has become a bit of a witch hunt.

Depends if she was completely transparent with the law firm about her arrangements. If so, it was their error (and they should say as much), if not it was hers.

As someone who deals with property purchases and SDLT regularly, I can see why the "normal" rate was applied. It does seem to be a complicated arrangement for the other property, so it's not a "dodge" in the usual way, but I still can't see how she can stay as DPM in these circumstances.

Not toast, then.

Also an incredibly complex situation - would feel very unfair if she's forced to resign in the circumstances (also our tax system is clearly way too complicated)

I don't think it adds up at all.

I just don't see how this can be an error.

Don't you? Sounds very much like the lawyer who pays HMRC should have known. This is the HMRC website - no caveats about formerly owned property!

Quite easily? She was given wrong advice about a very complex situation.

then she should publish that advice with the person advising her and others can judge in the profession ?

A simple google search would have told her that a child cannot own property in their own right. It can only be held in trust by adults as if its their own. If a google search can reveal this then I doubt a solicitor would miss it.

hence if not prepared to publish this advice should go ... this is pretty simple really

Surely the next demand will be ‘publish the (wrong) advice’ and if she can, with it saying what she claims, she’ll get through this.

"Oh god, Stamp Duty is horrible. You avoid giving any opinions on it and direct queries to a lawyer." - Paraphrasing the tax professional sat next to me.

This genuinely seems unlikely.

Why? What do you think she's lying about?

I think applying Occam's Razor that she was trying to avoid tax and use loopholes to do so. The fact that it was botched doesn't make it particularly better or worse to me personally, but it makes it even less tenable.

Especially considering that on the MCR property "at the time the property was put in trust, its value was listed at £650,000. If it had been a pound higher, Rayner would have had to pay an inheritance tax charge at that point."

I also think that most likely she was given the right advice given what she told the lawyers. I cannot believe any lawyer that the Deputy PM uses for this wouldn't have gone to extreme measures to ensure their advice was accurate.

If she's lied about that it would exceptionally stupid as that would immediately force a resignation.

I now think it very likely she's gone, whether sooner or later. I can't see them getting through this without pretty significant long-term damage if it is 'later'.

Zahawi had to go. Rayner has to go. SLM tends to wrap up his ethics reviews quickly, so I suspect his findings will be out within a week.

Getting into being (more) speculative: I would be surprised if the legal firm's name isn't leaked very soon, and I assume they've prepared their public defence for when this happens.

Just got this sent by a friend

From a purely expedient perspective, I can’t fathom why a high profile politician wouldn’t instruct their accountants to pay every penny of tax that could conceivably be owed.

Exactly.

Because £40,000 is a lot of money and if there is a convenient way of legally not paying that...

If she knew she really did owe it then it would have been mad to get a second opinion.

I think Farage will be PM by August.

I agree that it seems unlikely she was trying to illegally avoid it.

But also: from a purely expedient perspective, I can’t fathom why a high profile politician ensure that every piece of tax advice is completely accurate. And her personal circumstances seem complex, but I don't think the act of putting a house into a trust and buying another one is complex at all.

It's complex if you don't own the property but are deemed to have an interest. Certainly more so than standard stamp duty.

Accountant here: I’d be surprised if that incorrect advice was down to solicitor error rather than an (honest?) mistake on the info given to them.

SDLT is tricky but it’s not like HMRC don’t publish guidance on this scenario www.gov.uk/hmrc-interna...

(I could be wrong - just IME conveyancers tend to ask about 15 versions of the ‘are you *certain* this is your only property’ variety)

I think most people who don't currently own a house, when buying a new house, would believe they were only due to pay the sdlt for that situation. The legal advice likely sealed that belief. I would like to see a good legal explanation of this trust related sdlt issue to be honest.

We put a property into trust for a vulnerable relative while moving main residence too. The stamp duty def is a big issue. We got (it seems) similar wrong advice to start with, but we triple checked with another solicitor and with HMRC on the phone, and we are not high scrutiny gov ministers.

FFS.

There is not a chance in hell that is an error. She was engaged in some sophisticated asset planning for tax purposes. The fact she was so near to the taper would have been discussed. Lawyers & tax advisors make sure they discuss aspects to cover themselves & their clients.

Just to clarify if she told the truth & implemented legal tax avoidance, then she has done better than Hunt, Zadhawi, Jenrick & others. The concern will focus on the property valuation & her conflicting positions to accommodate the avoidance of different taxes. These bits, look very shaky.

Yep. If she genuinely didnt believe that she had to pay additional stamp duty because her other home was owned by her kid then why did she tell Hove council that it was a second home for council tax purposes? Its one or the other.

presumably depends on how much more there is that can be dragged out of this story - is there more material to come or will the press be left squeezing this dry with ever diminishing returns?

generally doesn't appear to stop them.

Badenoch already weaponising it in PMQ's.

"Nadhim Zahawi’s story about his tax affairs doesn’t add up. After months of denials, the truth emerges. His position is untenable. Rishi Sunak must dismiss him from his Cabinet." Angela Rayner

but will she still be able to weaponise it next week - that's the question

She barely weaponised it this week

What is the average refractory period for male journalists?

the average what?

Time after coitus before they can get it up again (unless this is a rhetorical question!). Not sure what the relevance is…

She needs to resign.

Whatever the outcome this will severely weaken her. I guess people who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses.

Who cares; seems like a witch hunt.

Enough people do.

Enough press do, I can not think of one person who has brought up tax evasion. Christ, most MPs flip flop tax evasion on their primary home sales. And I'm sure anyone who wishes to avoid tax legally, too, if the own 2 residences.

Based on the precedent of Louise Haigh, I fear she is in trouble and may need her lawyers to take the rap quite publicly, I do agree that it looks like a genuine error - her domestic circumstances and the trust arrangement are complex, and not obviously designed to save stamp duty.

But based on her public statement, this is going to also challenge Badenoch's skills at PMQs.

Everything challenges Kemi's skills at PMQs

It does, but we do still have the Minister for Housing not paying the right housing taxes. I would think that she will probably have to go for that. An analogy might be a City Minister not paying the right amount of CGT when selling investments.

She ought to have erred on the side of caution and seen the perils of engaging wealth management. She wanted to pay less tax, legally of course. Reality is that identifies her as just another money grubbing member of our ruling elites. Full taxes are only for the wage slaves.

Trying to ensure the security and stability of a disabled child and negotiate life after a divorce isn't 'engaging wealth management' or money grubbing. Or if you think it is, it is hardly limited to the 'elites'.

Would be if she were a man and a Tory !