Bye bye Starmer

[Simon]

What happened to the old days when they were caught in a Chelsea football kit or something, eh?

[Beany]

Can we at least have an exciting scandal, rather than something that requires an indepth knowledge of tax law?

This is fucking boring

[GG.]

As I expected, per my analysis above, this is going to get more vicious. The headlines have now pivoted to the fact that she's used the cash from her son's medical negligence payout to facilitate this house purchase. We're going to travel from technical non-compliance, incompetence and hypocrisy to accusations of rank immorality very quickly I think.

[Simon]

"Strong and stable"

[Jobbo]

As I expected, per my analysis above, this is going to get more vicious. The headlines have now pivoted to the fact that she's used the cash from her son's medical negligence payout to facilitate this house purchase. We're going to travel from technical non-compliance, incompetence and hypocrisy to accusations of rank immorality very quickly I think.

She got divorced and used her 25% share of the value of the house to buy a flat to live in separately from her ex-husband. I don’t think that’s unreasonable and it’s not a tax dodge. She’s been caught by an anti-tax avoidance rule which shouldn’t even apply in her situation.

There are many ways she could have avoided this though, most obviously taking proper advice at the time; but paying the duty as soon as she realised rather than denying it would have been sensible.

[GG.]

As I expected, per my analysis above, this is going to get more vicious. The headlines have now pivoted to the fact that she's used the cash from her son's medical negligence payout to facilitate this house purchase. We're going to travel from technical non-compliance, incompetence and hypocrisy to accusations of rank immorality very quickly I think.

She got divorced and used her 25% share of the value of the house to buy a flat to live in separately from her ex-husband. I don’t think that’s unreasonable and it’s not a tax dodge. She’s been caught by an anti-tax avoidance rule which shouldn’t even apply in her situation.

There are many ways she could have avoided this though, most obviously taking proper advice at the time; but paying the duty as soon as she realised rather than denying it would have been sensible.

Who bought that share and where did the cash come from?

You know as well as I do that she used the trust monies because that made if financially easier than getting her ex to buy her out - she's turned liquid trust cash into an illiquid asset for no gain to the beneficiary because the beneficiary already had access to the asset the trust acquired.

That's not a tax dodge but potentially a breach of trust law and fiduciary duties for self dealing. Plus the question as to whether she's accounted to the trust for the amenity value of living in the house, that it is 75% owner of, as her "primary residence".

It seems that a Shoosmiths representative is also co-trustee potentially appointed by the court of protection so would be interesting to know how they'd discharged any duties that they have in connection with the arrangements...

[GG.]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CS7n5 ... tid=wwXIfr

[IanF]

lol..

Sky News said she states she received advice from a solicitor; if she has documented proof she should show it to the press, or at least to the PM - which seems to have not happened yet? Strange..

If there’s no such info then she has to go as even her claim to be innocent and to have misunderstood the law is inexcusable for the Secretary of State for Housing.

[Jobbo]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CS7n5 ... tid=wwXIfr

Really adding to the debate there

She’s clearly received plenty of advice - someone at Shoosmiths being a trustee and the fact there was a court order are both indicators that the trust aspects have been well considered by lawyers. I don’t know if there is any mileage in what you suggest may be a breach of trust but no doubt you have more info, since I’ve only seen the SDLT point raised and nothing else.

[Marv]

Can we at least have an exciting scandal, rather than something that requires an indepth knowledge of tax law?

This is fucking boring

Bring back duck island expense scandals!

[Rich B]

it’s a pretty easy sum imo - if she tried to get the appropriate advice in good faith and the advice was wrong, she should stay. if she didn’t, then she should go.

there is obviously an extra layer involved as she is the housing minister, so that should bring with it an elevated level of assumed knowledge and responsibility, but even so, if the right type of law-monger said it was right, then she shouldn’t have to question the advice.

[GG.]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CS7n5 ... tid=wwXIfr

Really adding to the debate there

She’s clearly received plenty of advice - someone at Shoosmiths being a trustee and the fact there was a court order are both indicators that the trust aspects have been well considered by lawyers. I don’t know if there is any mileage in what you suggest may be a breach of trust but no doubt you have more info, since I’ve only seen the SDLT point raised and nothing else.

Even if the transfer of cash has been signed off as in the interests of the beneficiary (the money is her son's so paying yourself out in exchange for an interest in the property, a few months before he is 18, is going to stink for most people), I'm very interested to know the outcome of the point around whether she should be accounting to the trust for the benefit of using the property. My parents have been looking into succession/IHT planning - I had mentioned placing their house into a trust and the advice they had received was that you could not do that unless you pay a market rent to live in the property after it has been transferred.

If that is not the case then I'm very interested to hear why and the justifications because this looks to be a very similar situation. It could be that that applies narrowly to IHT but again, this will have the same commercial effect here.

[Jobbo]

You're going way beyond any accusations that are in public, so I'm afraid I'm going to duck out of discussing wild speculation.

[GG.]

The trusts points are being discussed online by clinical negligence solicitors and other specialists in the area - their opinion is that given the self dealing aspect that this would have been approved by the court given lack of capacity of the beneficiary to approve. I'm unsure as to whether that will be confirmed given the confidentiality restrictions placed on AR by the court. That puts her in a difficult situation if she can't disclose that that was all done properly (and ideally from a PR perspective all of that should have been disclosed at this point to not allow speculation).

I have not seen the accounting to the trust for personal benefit of use of the property being discussed. It may well be that as a carer of the child she does not need to do so but from a legal perspective I'd be interested to know the specific rationale.

[mik]

I expect these elements will be drawn out anyway, as they are fully woven into the situation she finds herself in.

House is now in trust as it provides a (fully legal) route to minimise her (or her son's) tax burden. Which is nice, but the vast majority of people don't have that option - mainly for the reasons that GG outlines. Legal, but it's definitely a loophole which requires very specific circumstances in order to qualify. Or to exploit. Take your pick.

Would you or I have taken the same opportunity in relation to said loophole if you found yourself in the same circumstances? Most would.

Would you have done so if you were the Deputy PM, with a significant influence over taxation policy for the country (even if not directly accountable for it)?

[ZedLeg]

She’s on her way out, the blue labour group have been wanting her out for ages and she’s lost union support.

This unforced error is probably the last drop.

[Simon]

Can I just say, even with 'advice' etc, (and similarly if you employ an accountant or tax specialist for your returns) the onus on maintaining integrity and honesty in your affairs always falls upon you, not the person 'advising' you. After all, you may get a very different answer from your adviser to "how can I minimise my tax obligations buying this property" and "tell me what stamp duty I need to pay".

[Mito Man]

Can I just say, even with 'advice' etc, (and similarly if you employ an accountant or tax specialist for your returns) the onus on maintaining integrity and honesty in your affairs always falls upon you, not the person 'advising' you. After all, you may get a very different answer from your adviser to "how can I minimise my tax obligations buying this property" and "tell me what stamp duty I need to pay".

Finally some fucking sense.

It’s pathetic how everyone looks to blame someone else for their mistakes. Doing it in the highest level of government is beyond the pale.

[Jobbo]

House is now in trust as it provides a (fully legal) route to minimise her (or her son's) tax burden.

That's far from being the reason to put an adapted house for a disabled person in trust. The reason is generally that it belongs to the disabled person but for whatever reason they are not able to deal with things themselves. I have a colleague who is semi-retired but remains (separately) trustee for two children who both suffered life-altering accidents some years ago and had substantial payouts to provide care for them during their lives. Those funds were held in trust and the houses they live in, bought for them, are in trust. However, since he's not their parent he wouldn't have the same SDLT issue when buying his own property. If Angela Rayner had appointed a third party trustee rather than being trustee herself, she wouldn't have had to pay higher rate SDLT. The reason this rule exists is to stop people creating a series of trusts to avoid tax - it's an anti-avoidance measure in the legislation. When the purpose of the trust was to secure the future care and quality of life of her child, I don't think tax avoidance is in any way a factor.

I'm not supporting her politically and I've said as much. She first denied that she'd done anything wrong (she should have investigated and sought advice at the time - it would have only taken a matter of hours at most) and now it's come up again later even a true story looks like excuses. She's basically as bad as Zahawi even if she didn't deliberately avoid tax because she denied it and delayed. Politically she's handled it very badly. She had the opportunity to handle it better and fluffed it.

[jamcg]

Can I just say, even with 'advice' etc, (and similarly if you employ an accountant or tax specialist for your returns) the onus on maintaining integrity and honesty in your affairs always falls upon you, not the person 'advising' you. After all, you may get a very different answer from your adviser to "how can I minimise my tax obligations buying this property" and "tell me what stamp duty I need to pay".

Finally some fucking sense.

It’s pathetic how everyone looks to blame someone else for their mistakes. Doing it in the highest level of government is beyond the pale.

As a clueless layman it’s just jimmy carr and Gary Barlow all over again. Except they aren’t employed to run the country