meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
The Ashton house which is now owned fully by her son’s trust. It would have meant the other trustees valued it at the same, which would include the solicitors.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
The Ashton house which is now owned fully by her son’s trust. It would have meant the other trustees valued it at the same, which would include the solicitors.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that makes sense I guess. I don't do tax returns so I've no experience of thatI don't know but if you are not borrowing money against it, then I can well imagine the checks and balances when you are doing so, may not be required? You don't have to have your tax return checked or provide evidence when you file it, for example. You just put down the numbers. Perhaps its the same when you put a house in trust for your kids?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Thanks again. So if the solicitors have valued it at £650k as well, surely that adds a bit of weight to her side?The Ashton house which is now owned fully by her son’s trust. It would have meant the other trustees valued it at the same, which would include the solicitors.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I'm hearing this morning that last year the NHS paid a significant sum into her son's trust, and that Ange has just sold her remaining share in the house to the trust, effectively using the NHS compensation money, to buy her Brighton flat.
Really not a good look at all if true.
Really not a good look at all if true.
hilts
Well-Known Member
How do you know she got the wrong advice ?If she got the wrong advice then how is it her fault? Surely the ones giving the advice are the ones at fault.
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
I remember a chancellor who was in conflict with tax office over £5 million bill… another one who didn’t declare his 7 properties…this woman persecuted by media for possible 40k…divorce, disabled kid…all looks very complicated
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
He did say if to be fair!How do you know she got the wrong advice ?
That is her defence. “I followed legal advice which turned out to be wrong”. Tories have challenged her to produce that advice.How do you know she got the wrong advice ?
Big fuss about nothing, what is £40,000 between friends?
How could she afford an £800,000 flat?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I remember a chancellor who was in conflict with tax office over £5 million bill… another one who didn’t declare his 7 properties…this woman persecuted by media for possible 40k…divorce, disabled kid…all looks very complicated
Hunt - didn’t resign. Johnson - didn’t resign. Mogg - didn’t resign. Sunak - l didn’t resign. Zahawi - didn’t resign.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
That is her defence. “I followed legal advice which turned out to be wrong”. Tories have challenged her to produce that advice.
Big fuss about nothing, what is £40,000 between friends?
How could she afford an £800,000 flat?
as deputy PM she will be being paid north of £160k pa - even "normal" people buy homes for in excess of £1m coz our house prices are in another dimension. If you were on £160k would you live in a terraced house in say Accrington?
It’s a second home. Five times earnings?as deputy PM she will be being paid north of £160k pa - even "normal" people buy homes for in excess of £1m coz our house prices are in another dimension. If you were on £160k would you live in a terraced house in say Accrington?
Brewster's millions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,242
She’ll be gone by the end of the week, if not today.
Starmer briefing the press that he’s doing everything he can to save her is the biggest giveaway.
The bloke is so disingenuous that he’ll know she’s toast, and he’ll be going through some embarrassing charade in the hope of boosting his working class credentials within the party.
Starmer briefing the press that he’s doing everything he can to save her is the biggest giveaway.
The bloke is so disingenuous that he’ll know she’s toast, and he’ll be going through some embarrassing charade in the hope of boosting his working class credentials within the party.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
And whilst everyone is concentrating on the £40k stamp duty underpayment, IF the house in Ashton is worth more that £650k, then that's IHT that has also been illegally evaded.
I am saying IF. But if the house should have been valued at say £750k, that would be another £40k she should have paid.
I am saying IF. But if the house should have been valued at say £750k, that would be another £40k she should have paid.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Solicitors don't do valuations. And the other trustees would have no interest in demanding a higher valuation. The open question is whether she got adequate professional valuations, or merely declared the £650k figure to the solicitor drawing up the trust paperwork.The Ashton house which is now owned fully by her son’s trust. It would have meant the other trustees valued it at the same, which would include the solicitors.
Kippax Street 1880
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 7,689
She has to go in my opinion. Hypocrite. She's only good for calling the Tories a bunch of cunts anyway.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Someone get the address and bang it in to Zoopla - we can do our own Bluemoon valuation!Solicitors don't do valuations. And the other trustees would have no interest in demanding a higher valuation. The open question is whether she got adequate professional valuations, or merely declared the £650k figure to the solicitor drawing up the trust paperwork.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
Thanks again. So if the solicitors have valued it at £650k as well, surely that adds a bit of weight to her side?
It’s really a non goer, given they reason they’d have put any of it into trust in the first place is so that IHT probably won’t be paid on it anyway.
The stamp duty is the story.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
Solicitors don't do valuations. And the other trustees would have no interest in demanding a higher valuation. The open question is whether she got adequate professional valuations, or merely declared the £650k figure to the solicitor drawing up the trust paperwork.
The solicitor is the trustee and of course they’d want it valued appropriately. They’d be absolutely shit trustees if they didn’t, obviously.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
where was this feeding frenzy when Hunt bought 7 flats because bulk purchases of 6 or more meant you were able to avoid £95k in stamp duty and then when asked about it he claimed to have "forgotten" the purchase of 7 flats at £450k each
Or when Zahawi avoided £3m tax and when the journalist Dan Niedle began investigating the case he got his lawyer to threaten him ( actions that got the lawyers firm fined £50k with £300k costs and him being struck off ) and when it all came out Zahawi denied all knowledge of it all and agreed to pay HMRC the tax he had avoided, no sanction, no court case nothing.
Or when Zahawi avoided £3m tax and when the journalist Dan Niedle began investigating the case he got his lawyer to threaten him ( actions that got the lawyers firm fined £50k with £300k costs and him being struck off ) and when it all came out Zahawi denied all knowledge of it all and agreed to pay HMRC the tax he had avoided, no sanction, no court case nothing.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
where was this feeding frenzy when Hunt bought 7 flats because bulk purchases of 6 or more meant you were able to avoid £95k in stamp duty and then when asked about it he claimed to have "forgotten" the purchase of 7 flats at £450k each
Or when Zahawi avoided £3m tax and when the journalist Dan Niedle began investigating the case he got his lawyer to threaten him ( actions that got the lawyers firm fined £50k with £300k costs and him being struck off ) and when it all came out Zahawi denied all knowledge of it all and agreed to pay HMRC the tax he had avoided, no sanction, no court case nothing.
Whats that got to do with it? They were crooks too?
Do we let rayner get away with a very serious error of judgement without question because hunt and zahawi did similar? Specially as rayner was as vocal as any body about it?
Greed has bit her on her arse big time.
Just goes to show, whatever side they are on, politicians are in it for what they can snatch for themselves
twats