Oboogie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 8:31 pmDid they actually advise that? I just saw some bland “we don’t offer tax advice” which I took to mean “nothing to do with us”.Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 5:58 pm Yeah, despite my first reaction, I recognize she had to go, and in fairness it was done quickly.Rayner's situation regarding the trust for her son was so unusual that it was beyond her high street solicitor's pay grade, hence their advice that she consult a tax advisor. It was choosing to ignore this advice which was her downfall.
I do think she was hugely unlucky though. If I were her, I'd be wondering what I'd paid the solicitor for. Having had to pay stamp duty myself a few years ago, I don't recall too much being made of the importance of getting expert tax advice. Maybe there was some sort of bland disclaimer about not providing tax advice, but is that enough? The British, so we're told, our world beaters at professional services. How about the solicitor learn a bit about tax and say "potential tax issues may include...."? Wouldn't that be better service, aside from anything else? It wasn't something that everybody would know (one personal finance journo very graciously said they didn't know) but equally it's not so obscure that it would be set as a tie-breaker at a tax law quiz night).
Perhaps the solicitor did flag up appropriately, in which case I take it back.
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:22 pm Zahawi didn’t get charged with fraud. Why would she?As I said, I don't think she will. Nevertheless it is an offence to make a false declaration on conveyancing documents, she could be accused of lying for the purposes of tax evasion.
Oboogie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:33 pmKemi Badenoch basically accused her of that (despite Laurie Magnus not saying anything of the sort). Nobody serious will accuse her of that, and she won't be charged. HMRC deals with zillions of cases like this. She'll have to pay the extra tax plus an interest charge (in effect a fine). This will be dishonestly portrayed as her being guilty of tax evasion, but it isn't, it's more akin to settling a lawsuit. Zahawi paid 30% interest, I'd guess she'll pay less. There are two reasons they do this- evasion is very hard to prove, and you have to allow that tax is complicated and easy to get wrong.
As I said, I don't she will. Nevertheless it is an offence to make a false declaration on conveyancing documents, she could be accused of lying for the purposes of tax evasion.
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:33 pm So we learn today that Peter Kyle's been phoning round assuring union people that the workers rights bill is going ahead as before.The Guardian's Hot Trot Line to McCluskey is clearly still active.
The latest Guardian story was just like all the other "it's being watered down, betrayal" stories, it seems.
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:01 pm I get how journalism works, and how it can tell us interesting things about the dynamics of a government that are good to know, and some of the briefing of "something bad's happening" will come from the Government itself as it prepares a U-turn, or plays with expectations. But there seems to be too much of an impression being pushed that the Government is worse/more stupid than it actually is, and I'm suspicious that it's being pushed by The Guardian because it wants to dump Labour for the Greens.It's also because they have to pnader to their online readership.
- By The Weeping Angel
I get how journalism works, and how it can tell […]
- By Boiler