Well, that's bunkum too.
I was the first to quote the bit she got wrong
Since then all I've done is try and sift through the hatred, the misogyny and the class warfare to get to a bit of understanding. Unlike those rushing headlong to judgment (and making stuff up), I've tried to read the HMRC guidance - and the legalese of sectuon 4ZA behind it.
I'm open to correction on this, but from what I can see the actual HMRC declaration doesn't mention the "trust" in the question about ownership. So you could ignore this box if you didn't realise that ownership can mean something other than ownership - i.e. you're treated as an owner when you're not an owner. (Some might say the law is an ass.)
"Residential — additional properties":
Is where the purchase of a residential property results in you owning more than one residential property
If the new property is a replacement for your main residence which has not yet been sold, you must still use this code but you may be able to claim a refund when your main residence is sold
Don’t quote me your post when you finally had the balls to rear your head after the fact lol.
You and others told us we had it all wrong, she had done nothing untoward.
Ooops!
Drop the misogyny line as well. It’s as utterly pathetic as it is expected from you and others on here that deflect and try to shut down using the same old tired accusations.
Spend 5 mins reading the Tory threads or the so called right wing threads to see the comments on females in those which funnily never seem to bring out claims of misogyny.
Funny that.