The Labour Government

If you sell your house to a third party, then it's clear who owns it and no ambiguity nor confusion arises.

But if you put it into trust for another party, whilst still treating it as your main home, it's a different situation isn't it. You're exploiting a technicality to reduce your stamp duty on a second home by claiming it's the only one you own, when in fact you have another home that you are treating as your own.

The fact her son was under 18 meant that technical opportunity ceased to exist.

But as I say, even if he was over 18, she may still have been in trouble. The HMRC can challenge arrangements when they suspect they feel they are contrived to avoid tax.

That’s not a technicality though, that’s just reality. It’s got nothing to do with where your main residence is. Stamp duty is all about ownership of homes as it’s the ownership that makes up the estate (obviously).

If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble.
 
That’s not a technicality though, that’s just reality. It’s got nothing to do with where your main residence is. Stamp duty is all about ownership of homes as it’s the ownership that makes up the estate (obviously).

If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble.
Not true.

From Ashton Legal:

"To avoid paying the higher SDLT on your next home, you must not own or be treated as owning any other residence at the time of purchase.

Therefore, simply holding your existing home in a trust while living there usually does not mean your next home will qualify as a main residence for SDLT purposes, and you will pay the additional property rate on your new house
."

As a reminder, she's described Ashton as continuing to be her main home, and confirmed that she will continue to be living there.
 
If you sell your house to a third party, then it's clear who owns it and no ambiguity nor confusion arises.

But if you put it into trust for another party, whilst still treating it as your main home, it's a different situation isn't it. You're exploiting a technicality to reduce your stamp duty on a second home by claiming it's the only one you own, when in fact you have another home that you are treating as your own.

The fact her son was under 18 meant that technical opportunity ceased to exist.

But as I say, even if he was over 18, she may still have been in trouble. The HMRC can challenge arrangements when they suspect they feel they are contrived to avoid tax.
I suspect that the angle not being said is that Angela sold it to her son's trust, maybe using the cash for her Hove apartment, and then rented the AUL house from the trust, paying with MP allowance.
In effect, giving her son's trust the housing allowance.

If that's the case, then while not breaking the rules, it's breaking the spirit of the rules.
No doubt many other MPs have a similar fiddle.
 
I suspect that the angle not being said is that Angela sold it to her son's trust, maybe using the cash for her Hove apartment, and then rented the AUL house from the trust, paying with MP allowance.
In effect, giving her son's trust the housing allowance.

If that's the case, then while not breaking the rules, it's breaking the spirit of the rules.
No doubt many other MPs have a similar fiddle.
If she was to be paying rent when staying in Ashton, you'd probably be right that she could get away with it. But I agree it would be a fiddle and getting away with it on a technicality.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I lived in Ashton from birth until i was mid 20's and a little later worked in the town too for 4/5 years probably upto around 1995 or so.

Since then I've been into the town centre only a handful of times and it's just awful & run down...last time I was there I couldn't find a pub doing food apart from spoons at lunchtime.

It's exactly the sort of area that Reform will take unless everyone wakes up.
So it’s basically a shit hole?
 
Not true.

From Ashton Legal:

"To avoid paying the higher SDLT on your next home, you must not own or be treated as owning any other residence at the time of purchase.

Therefore, simply holding your existing home in a trust while living there usually does not mean your next home will qualify as a main residence for SDLT purposes, and you will pay the additional property rate on your new house
."

As a reminder, she's described Ashton as continuing to be her main home, and confirmed that she will continue to be living there.

Yes it is true. If he was 18 then she wouldn’t be treated as owning it.
 
Every thing rayner has in life is down to the tax payer.
Crass that she tried to fiddle the tax payer for a measly 40k

Greed
That’s pretty much it.

She lied at every stage of the investigation, most obviously by saying that she believed she had received sufficient legal advice on the matter, because that legal advice was explicit in stating that she needed to seek expert guidance in relation to stamp duty.

The only way she would have sought out that expert advice is if the initial guidance had suggested she needed to pay the additional rate of stamp duty.

Good riddance.
 
So it’s basically a shit hole?
Met some old friends there a few years ago and had an afternoon drinking in the pubs (or trying to) that we used to frequent when on the pull many many moons ago.

Most were either shut, bore no resemblance to what they were or were just complete dives (special dive accreditation to the Station pub on the bypass, although the Feathers & Cavern were also wipe your feet on the way out places )

Last time there we had an appointment near Stamford Park and ate at a lovely place just past what was Stamford School. Other than that, for a few years until I left the Manchester area I'd play golf at the golf club and straight back out.

I know it's not the only 'hole' in North Manchester or even the country but yes, If I had to pigeon hole it shit hole would fit.
 
That’s pretty much it.

She lied at every stage of the investigation, most obviously by saying that she believed she had received sufficient legal advice on the matter, because that legal advice was explicit in stating that she needed to seek expert guidance in relation to stamp duty.

The only way she would have sought out that expert advice is if the initial guidance had suggested she needed to pay the additional rate of stamp duty.

Good riddance.

Worth saying again that the ethics report found she acted with integrity. It’s your opinion that she lied throughout, which you’re perfectly entitled to :)
 
Shit show following on the years of lies and corruption of the previous lot . Now we’ve got Farage and co pontificating on morals and honesty. Country is fucked
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top