The Labour Government

meltonblue said:
You’re simply factually wrong and you’re googling the wrong things. It doesn’t matter where she is living, the whole point of stamp duty is ownership. When her child turns 18, he will become the legal owner of the house. Until then, the parents are considered owners, even though it’s owned by the trust.

Of course I’m not going to accept it, it’s not a debate or an opinion that you’re entitled to, as I said you are just wrong.

And on your last point, colour me surprised you haven’t read the ethics report ;)
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are mistaken. It hinges upon whether a person has a beneficial interest in the property. If they do, then it continues to count as a home for SDLT purposes. So the question becomes whether she has a beneficial interest. If she merely visits for several weeks per year, she may not be classed as having a beneficial interest. But if she is able to go to the property at any time for life (of the property) - which given the situation with her son would seem likely - then she does have a beneficial interest and the additional 3% SDLT is payable on her next home.

Google it if you wish, or not. I really don't care if you want to continue to believe you're right when you're not.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Patel did and refused to go.
Zahawi did and had to be sacked.
Click to expand...
Correct, Patel was a serial breacher. The Commissioner resigned when his judgement was reversed by Boris and the code was then rewritten. Many have been alleged to have broken the code including Johnson, Kwarteng, Jenrick & Williamson but not sure if any were officially confirmed as having done so by the OPS.
 
Ray bloody Purchase said:
Had to look up Lucy on the net as I wasn’t aware of her, you cannot make up this entry on Wiki:

Powell supports Manchester City F.C.

In 2021, Powell was named as one of 115 landlord Members of Parliament.
Click to expand...
Well. She’s been sacked. I’m as good at this as I am betting on City!!!!
 
Brewster's millions said:
I have read the report, which is why I know that she has lied.

Quite why Magnus claims she has acted with integrity throughout the process is a complete mystery- he seems more interested in her family circumstances and in making excuses for her than actually determining whether she has broken the ministerial code.
Click to expand...

He’s not convinced like you are that she lied, which is why I said it’s your opinion that you’re perfectly entitled to.
 
yeseye said:
Another scumbag Lucy Powell going..
How can Raynor still be MP for Ashton?
Reform will clean up in that area if there is to be a by-by-election
Click to expand...
It's looking likely that she's going to be removed from the electoral roll in her constituency, so don't know how that affects her MP status
I do know that the reason MP's, when caught up in some kind of scandal generally say, "i won't stand at the next election", is because if they resign, their salary stops immediately
If they serve until a GE, and then decide not to stand, they are entitled to a further year's salary
 
dickie davies said:
It's looking likely that she's going to be removed from the electoral roll in her constituency, so don't know how that affects her MP status
I do know that the reason MP's, when caught up in some kind of scandal generally say, "i won't stand at the next election", is because if they resign, their salary stops immediately
If they serve until a GE, and then decide not to stand, they are entitled to a further year's salary
Click to expand...
She’ll keep her snout in the trough as long as possible!
 
Chippy_boy said:
Sorry but you are mistaken. It hinges upon whether a person has a beneficial interest in the property. If they do, then it continues to count as a home for SDLT purposes. So the question becomes whether she has a beneficial interest. If she merely visits for several weeks per year, she may not be classed as having a beneficial interest. But if she is able to go to the property at any time for life (of the property) - which given the situation with her son would seem likely - then she does have a beneficial interest and the additional 3% SDLT is payable on her next home.

Google it if you wish, or not. I really don't care if you want to continue to believe you're right when you're not.
Click to expand...
I think he is definitely right, (and you are possibly also right)
www.gov.uk

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts] - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Pretty clear on that - parent treated as owner of property in trust for minor child. Doesn’t matter whether she visits or not.
 
crystal_mais said:
Wonder if she will remain the MP for Ashton - she scraped in with the vote last time with a majority of just under 7000 and around a 50% turnout. With Reform coming 2nd. Based on the last 12 months, I wouldn't be surprised if Reform take the next election here.
Click to expand...
I doubt she'll have to and I also doubt she'll be asked to. Not only that she's a huge mortgage to pay.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Sorry but you are mistaken. It hinges upon whether a person has a beneficial interest in the property. If they do, then it continues to count as a home for SDLT purposes. So the question becomes whether she has a beneficial interest. If she merely visits for several weeks per year, she may not be classed as having a beneficial interest. But if she is able to go to the property at any time for life (of the property) - which given the situation with her son would seem likely - then she does have a beneficial interest and the additional 3% SDLT is payable on her next home.

Google it if you wish, or not. I really don't care if you want to continue to believe you're right when you're not.
Click to expand...

I don’t need to google it. Think about what you’re saying here and what a beneficial interest actually is and entitles the person to. She for very obvious reasons will not be claiming a beneficial interest in the Ashton house, that would be completely nonsensical.
 
meltonblue said:
Worth saying, the ethics report did find that she acted with integrity. She hasn’t lost her job for being found to be dishonest.
Click to expand...
Being economical with the truth would seem a fitting way of putting it.
She chose not to follow the advice she was given, which, in short, said she should seek specialist advice.
The Ethics report says " she did not heed the caution" in legal advice she received.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Keith Stalin purge of his enemies begins.
Click to expand...
zhukov.gif
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
Being economical with the truth would seem a fitting way of putting it.
She chose not to follow the advice she was given, which, in short, said she should seek specialist advice.
The Ethics report says " she did not heed the caution" in legal advice she received.
Click to expand...

Yep which rightly led to the conclusion it did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top