It may well be bad advice made worse by using what appears to be a complex scheme to limit tax liability. Not a good move by her whilst being part of a government with integrity high on it's agenda. The ethics inquiry could be completed within days, but there's no doubt her reputation is damaged and her future hanging in the balance.
The Rayner explanation is interesting: The house in Manchester is home to her disabled son, whom she and her ex-partner both care for. The trust she holds comes from compensation awarded by the NHS for the malpractice that caused his condition. ....record scratching sfx Angela Rayner 'used some of her disabled son's NHS compensation to buy second home' https://uk.news.yahoo.com/angela-rayner-used-her-disabled-064819770.html £160,000 Gotta go surely?
No, these are unproven allegations particularly, as would be expected, from the rabid right. The ethics inquiry is to report in a matter of days, HRMC are involved and will decided if illegal tax evasion warrants legal action.
Oh come, are you telling me Labour wouldn't be making the same allegations if it was the other way round?
I just feel that if she doesn't go then it really is double standards - even though I truly believe she did investigate and took advice on what to do. The main issue is she is housing minister. The second is she is deputy PM. To be an MP you should be squeaky clean, but to be deputy PM even squeakier. To not pay the correct Stamp Duty whilst housing minister really is unfortunate and probably not recoverable.
Exactly. It really shouldn't be too hard for the housing minister to pay the right tax on a property.
That's the issue. There's no excuse for her to be unaware as she should know the laws around stamp duty inside out.
And if she doesn't, she not only can consult lawyers, but her actual government who enforce the rules?
No Tommo, you've misunderstood, I didn't say Labour, or any other party for that matter, wouldn't be making the same allegations. My post below to clarify. "No, these are unproven allegations particularly, as would be expected, from the rabid right. The ethics inquiry is to report in a matter of days, HRMC are involved and will decided if illegal tax evasion warrants legal action."
Has there been laws broken? There is some complexity to these housing arrangements, which require more consideration than the tabloid's analysis. I was jumping the gun earlier, Jabs is right, I'll await the committee's findings
The bit in bold implies otherwise. It doesn't matter if it doesn't warrant legal action anyway, her position is untenable regardless IMO.
Tom, I said unproven allegations, allegations nonetheless that are being investigated as they should be. As I said before her reputation is damaged and future uncertain.
As I have made clear, I have little sympathy for an MP dodging tax buying a £900k flat. That is a huge sum of money and out of most of our dreams. However, I have never had to make my own choices around any of the fees paid when buying a home. There is a small chance this is somebody else’s **** up, so it is probably best to wait for this to be reviewed. And didn’t she buy the place before she was in government? Not that it really makes a difference. I do have some sympathy for the family tragedy behind all this though.
100% agree. You'd have to be a heartless bastard not to. I don't have any doubt this was a genuine mistake rather than deliberate tax dodging but I do think if a normal member of the public did something like this they would be treated as a tax evader. That is why she has to at least resign as Housing Secretary.
Yep. Like I say, even if she stays as deputy PM, I don't see how she can remain as housing secretary. It will be another own goal by Labour.
Putting the family home in a trust for her kid is no problem at all. If that was all it was there would be "nothing to see here." The problem initially was that she named 1 house as her home for council tax purposes and the other as her home to avoid stamp duty! and then it arose last night that she had sold her 25% share of the old family home to her son's trust fund which was where she got the heft deposit for her new home in Brighton. That trust fund came about due to an NHS compensation payment to provide for her son. So why would her son now owning 75% of that home instead of 50% of it benefit the son? Some have said today that owning 75% or 100% is better for the child when Angela and her former husband pop their clogs but somehow they missed that he would inherit the other half of the house anyway.......for free! So the main part is that she chose to name 2 different places as her home to pay less council tax and less stamp duty.........and then basically managed her own house sale and purchase from funds that were meant to be for her son's life benefit! The former is the key though.
