Publicly available tax advice from HMRC rules out the supposed “advice” Rayner received in relation to her SDLT payment on the purchase of her third home in Hove.
On simply worded Gov.uk guidance titled “Guidance: Higher rates of Stamp Duty Land Tax” Rayner’s exact situation is advised on:
“What property the higher rates apply to
When you know who the rules apply to, you should work out how many residential properties each of you will own at the end of the day of your new purchase.
If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
- is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
- you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.”
Shoosmiths have confirmed they did not advise Rayner on the matter. Who did?
Generous hacks have said the tax situation is extremely complex – it is spelled out here in black and white. Did Rayner not check the online advice when claiming a wrongful £40,000 discount?
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”