Angela Rayner

Tge first thing I was taught in legal studies is that ignorance is no defence. She knew the law and flouted it. No excuse, just like the rest of us!

Another fly on the wall, party to whatever exchanges took place.

How do you know she knew the law? She is neither a lawyer nor a tax expert. She has explained in her statement:

When purchasing the property my understanding, *on advice from lawyers*, was that my circumstances meant I was liable for the standard rate of stamp duty.

Karmalady Oh dear. Has she really used her son’s nhs compensation to help her buy the flat?

No. The trust which administers Angela Rayner’s son’s award, has quite properly used some of the funds to buy a property in which he can live, in financial security.

rosyposy50

Tge first thing I was taught in legal studies is that ignorance is no defence. She knew the law and flouted it. No excuse, just like the rest of us!

How do you know that she knew the law? When she bought the Hove property, she didn't own any other property. She would have had to have some knowledge of trust law, which she possibly didn't.

Bixiboo

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

This is libellous. No, she hasn't. She has ensured that he has a roof over his head for life.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I don’t hate Angela Rayner.
I do hate being taken for a fool though.

Angela Rayner has stated quite clearly that for council tax purposes her constituency house is her main residence. She has also stated quite clearly that for stamp duty purposes her new apartment in Hove is her principal residence.

What legal advice could she possibly need to know that this is impossible?

No, it's not impossible. You don't have to own a home to pay council tax on it.

Are you saying she didn’t have it explained to her by her advisor? Like I said, for the rest of us ignorance of the law is not a defence!

She is NOT saying she was ignorant of the law, She is saying she was advised she need only pay the standard rate of SDLT.

When purchasing the property my understanding, on advice from lawyers, was that my circumstances meant I was liable for the standard rate of stamp duty.

Bixiboo

Apparently so karmalady. It was reported on the news earlier. It seems to be a total mess and to me what she has done to her sons life care is 100% worse than the issue of whether she should remain as an MP.

What a vile comment!

I would have thought even the worst lawyer would know about stamp duty. They could have googled it first or ask any estate agent.

Why don't people read threads before commenting?

Had you read my post at 20:39:16 you would understand this is not a simply matter.

Let me repeat:

Experts say however that the piece of property law in question is so rarely invoked that a conveyancer might not have thought to ask about it.

James Liffen, a partner at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: “It should have been picked up, but it is something that requires a degree of specialist expertise beyond the average conveyancing solicitor.”

By attempting to avoid paying the correct amount of stamp duty.
Poor behaviour. From the Deputy Prime Minister : shocking.

Have we got anyone trustworthy in our Government? Week after week, we hear about someone being ‘unaware of the law’, ‘ignorant of certain legislation’ etc. etc.
If ministers are so unaware of the law that they can cheat and act illegally, how on earth can they hold their heads up in front of their constituents? And how did they get elected if they are so ignorant?

Allsorts

I would have thought even the worst lawyer would know about stamp duty. They could have googled it first or ask any estate agent.

They would know about stamp duty, but not necessarily about trusts.

I am not a Labour (or Tory) voter but nor am I daft enough to imagine that MPs of any party are all knowledgable about areas such as tax law. Even Accountants (of which I am one) have areas of knowledge which are not in their everyday repetoire - and as they say "a bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

However, I would think and believe that a legal adviser, advising on the taxation (of which Stamp Duty is one area) of a property purchase would be well versed in such details, and if I consulted one regarding the tax due on a property purchase would be entitled to believe their statement that only the standard rate of Stamp Duty would apply in this case. In fact my DH and I have today had an appointment with a local solicitor to discuss our wills which may or may not involve the transfer of the assets of the spouse who dies first into a Discretionary Trust and would assume that her advice re taxes thereon is correct.

That advice may eventually prove to be incorrect, but that is not my first assumption.

We are all entitled to arrange our financial affairs in any legal manner which minimises the amount of tax payable. That is perfectly legal - indeed it is sensible. It is not only NOT Tax Evasion (which is basically lying) and not even Tax Avoidance (which is legal but employs little-known, devious and complex transactions that were never intended to provide people with a way of paying less tax. But selling a portion of the ownership of a property to the trust that supports the home of a disabled child is neither Evasion nor Avoidance.

Angela Rayner was perfectly entitled to do that and had sound personal reasons for doing so - and that transaction itself would presumably have no effect on the rate of stamp duty on a separate purchase of a new home.

Therefore I cannot see that she has done anything wrong, but my knowledge of Stamp Duty is not bang up to date and was never a part of my working experience as an Accountant.

Re council tax on her Ashton residence, if she lives there she pays council tax, unless regarded merely as a temporary visitor. I imagine she will also pay council tax on the new flat - but that isn't my area either.

Yes, the law re stamp duty on second homes is not straightforward but I have worked for several solicitors over my life who specialised in both trusts and property purchase who would have full and detailed knowledge of this area - and therefore would be trusted to advise correctly.

Leave the poor woman alone, FGS. Her "crime" (if any) is small fry compared to some of the millions of pounds of unpaid tax by some MPs who "forgot" to declare taxable transactions and still retained their jobs. And these were people with access to top lawyers and accountants, not relatively uneducated (though not stupid by a long chalk) young women who have seen life when it was really hard.

My son had a query over Stamp duty. He phoned the helpline and got advice. Later some doubts were raised as to whether the advice he was given was correct. He phoned the Government helpline again and was told the opposite advice! It is clearly complicated that even the people who advise don't always get it right.

I'm sorry that we even know about the the sad private dealings of this woman. It's a complicated storm in a teacup whipped up by the media looking for a nice nasty story.

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

Iam64

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

Prime minister in waiting

Around and block come to mind

I still say provide full disclosure & redact all personal details. And I still think the PR department of the firm involved will want to put their side of this story as it’s casting a bad light on their competency!

Madmeg thank you for your considered & knowledgable post.

Iam64 those trying to force Angela out should be careful what they wish for. I think there’s no question of her resigning as an MP, only from Government, and she’d possibly be a far more formidable opponent on the back benches than as a minister!

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I still say provide full disclosure & redact all personal details. And I still think the PR department of the firm involved will want to put their side of this story as it’s casting a bad light on their competency!

Some of the personal details involve her son, who is a minor. AR has no right to disclose those, even if she wanted to.

Iam64

It’s part of the campaign to force AR out.

And a lot of it comes from within her party. She is an embarrassment to many of them and they want her out.

I wonder how this thread would be different if it wasn't AR but one of our sons or daughters who had found themselves in this position? eg My son and his ex wife have two children, one is severely disabled, sadly their marriage ended some years ago and my son now works in London............... you get my drift. Take the politics out of it and you might find a bit more humanity in the responses!

Tax barrister Patrick Cannon is considered to be a leading expert on SDLT.

www.patrickcannon.net/about/

In 2019 he published this paper:

www.patrickcannon.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SDLT_Analysis-and-Planning-for-Higher-Rates-Transaction-14-2-19.pdf

SDLT legislation is not easy to understand in complex cases. No estate agent, conveyancer or even general family solicitor is likely to know the law or be able to advise without taking specialist advice. Even Tax expert Dan Neidle over on BluSky is saying a tentative it sounds like para 12 Sch 4ZA Finance 2003 - rather than para 12 Sch 4ZA Finance 2003 applies.

Anybody who cares to read the Cannon link will see that it could be complicated by what court arrangements may or may not have been made to care for Rayner’s disabled son. Frankly, I don’t think it is anybody’s business outside of the family to know that or demand that it be disclosed.

The legislation says this:

The interests of a beneficiary under 18 years of age are attributed to its parents and any spouse or civil partner living together with one of the child’s parents except in relation to property held by trustees of children subject to arrangements made by the Court of Protection. [FA 2003, Sch 4ZA, para 12]

I understand that her son is now 17 and will turn 18 next April.

As Rayner is now saying she will pay the additional SDLT then one might deduce that the Court of Protection exception doesn’t apply but, if she was trying to avoid paying extra SDLT and is fully conversant with the tax law (as some here seem keen to allege), then why didn’t she wait until he turned 18 in April 2026?