Angela Rayner cleared by HMRC. What a coincidence!

Liz Truss, who was PM for just 49 days received a one off payment of £18,860 and is entitled to claim an annual amount of up to £115K p.a. Not a bad whack for nearly destroying our economy!

Allsorts

Different rules for some people.

A Contract of Employment is a legal agreement. Why are you expecting them all to be the same? That's surely just lazy thinking

Different rules for some people.

If the severance pay was standard practice, so what?

My friends in the nhs get about that amount, if they've spent a reaonable amount of time in their jobs.

Primrose53

Let’s not forget AR received approx £17,000 severance pay when she resigned.

I expect that’s standard, in her circumstances?

Or good riddance

It was called a ‘golden goodbye’.

Casdon

You weren’t the only person on the thread who mentioned the severance pay Primrose53, nor did I quote you in my post?

I can’t see anybody else mentioning severance pay and you posted immediately below my post. So even if you say you didn’t quote me, it was targeted at me.

So who exactly are you directing your statement at?
“Let’s not make out that severance pay was a special privilege.”

You weren’t the only person on the thread who mentioned the severance pay Primrose53, nor did I quote you in my post?

Casdon

‘UK government ministers are generally entitled to severance pay, typically a lump sum equivalent to one-quarter of their annual ministerial salary (three months' pay), when they leave their role, regardless of the reason for departure, provided they are under 65 and not reappointed within three weeks.’ From the government library.
Let’s not make out that severance pay was a special privilege.

I never said any such thing!
Please don’t try to put words into my mouth. I think most of us already know how severance pay works.

He wont be the first, of course, but perhaps the first on this scale and the high drama of splitting the nation. It's so appallingly reminiscent of those in power in the USA.

He's just greedy for more wealth - no more, no less, and using his politics as a vehicle to get there.

Oh well that makes it all right then 🤣.

​Farage has changed his mind about the purpose of the gift recently.

"This information shouldn't even be in the public domain. [...] It's very unusual for someone to give up 27 years of their life to campaign for something. And this was given to me on an unconditional basis, completely unconditional basis. But frankly, it was given as a reward for campaigning for Brexit for 27 years."^

This is from an interview with The Sun's Harry Cole

That is helpful, thanks Graphite.

HMRC is bound by a strict statutory duty of confidentiality under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. They generally cannot disclose details about a taxpayer's settlement to third parties unless specifically allowed by law

It will be up to Rayner to do so.

Dan Neidle is writing a lot about this implying that Rayner’s counsel “would say that wouldn’t he” about her having been given wrong advice as it’s his job to defend her.

Without sight of documentary evidence it’s impossible for the public to know.

It’s not dissimilar to all the controversy over Mandelson’s vetting when Ollie Robbins admitted that notes of telephone calls and meetings were not kept.

If advice was given to Rayner without anything put in writing it becomes one person’s word against another which is why Neidle has called for documentary evidence. He says:

Mr Aaronson told me that (although he was much more polite than this) the Sir Laurie Magnus report was wrong (or at least very incomplete, given the limited time Sir Laurie had) … I've asked Sir Laurie Magnus for comment.

Think back to when this happened, his conclusions did come very quickly. Again this seems to be a case of media frenzy demanding things happen faster than they should have done … similar to calls for Starmer to resign over allegedly lying to Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting when all the evidence obtained by the Foreign Affairs Committee subsequently shows that Mandelson didn't fail vetting.

The information about interest being paid has not been made public though Graphite, that was the point I was making.

It would be helpful in situations like this if HMRC was able to make a factual statement, but I believe they are not able to do so?

SDLT is due within 14 days of completing on a property purchase so Rayner's a year late and would have been charged 7.75% interest, around £3,100 on £40,000.

The crux here is that her legal counsel Graham Aaronson KC has said that what is in Laurie Magnuss’ statement that: advice given to her at the time was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did not constitute expert tax advice is incorrect.

Aaronson says that the actual facts demonstrate that Rayner had been given definitive advice that there was no higher rate SDLT charge, without any caveat.

That would not stop HMRC from charging interest. If a professional gives incorrect advice, HMRC holds the taxpayer ultimately responsible. It is for them to make a claim against the advisor for restitution.

‘UK government ministers are generally entitled to severance pay, typically a lump sum equivalent to one-quarter of their annual ministerial salary (three months' pay), when they leave their role, regardless of the reason for departure, provided they are under 65 and not reappointed within three weeks.’ From the government library.
Let’s not make out that severance pay was a special privilege.

Let’s not forget AR received approx £17,000 severance pay when she resigned.

Casdon

You may be right MartavTaurus. That does not make it okay for information which has not been publicly stated, so is not known to be factual, to be passed off as though it were though, does it?

Indeed not. No one knows.

You may be right MartavTaurus. That does not make it okay for information which has not been publicly stated, so is not known to be factual, to be passed off as though it were though, does it?

Whitewavemark2

If Farage has so much dosh washing around for “his security” how come he still can’t hold surgeries in Clacton, because of lack of security?

Quite. I never seen anyone who looks like security when he’s on his walkabouts.

Well neither she nor her lawyers are going to mention any interest, are they? That would imply she messed up somewhere. I don't think much about anything has been disclosed at all.

And that's probably part of the problem - what looks like a covering up of the truth.