egg

Worship

It's complicated when it comes to Trust arrangements. On the face of it, she didn't own another property, but the circumstances around the Trust meant that she had a technical interest. Being the housing minister wouldn't give her that sort of tax knowledge. Re the rest, there's a difference between what Shoosmiths said yesterday and the ethics letter. Shoosmiths were clear that they did not give any advice regarding the SDLT due, just an online figure (information, not advice - an important distinction), with their advice being that she takes Tax advice. The ethics letter refers to Shoosmiths having given "advice", with a "recommendation" and a "suggestion" that she takes advice. Is surprised if that's accurate. She's "guilty by omission" on the ethics letter version, but it looks murkier based on Shoosmiths account. Regardless, she messed up properly and had to go. Credit to her though for the self referral, the (belated) proper advice, and resigning.

She'd be lucky to get enough to buy 2 pints. Although, chances are she'd try to get away with only paying for 1.

Fundamentally disagree. Forget numbers per year, PPE was a rape and pillage exercise that we're all paying for. I ain't paying Rayner's bit of tax. She will.

When we've had PPE type scandals you'll have a point. Until then, we just have a few rogues.

Indeed. Conveyancers always tell clients to get tax advice. They move deeds and money around and register at HMLR. That's it. They don't do tax, although they'll submit the clients SDLT return for them. When Shoosmiths explained the reality, she was toast.

Tax policy is normally set by governments mate. Politics. I'll only respond again to you if you finally taking an interest in the defrauded footballers. If you want to discuss tax policy, start a thread in the lounge, and we can chat away over there, you know, in the right place for it.

Inevitable after Shoosmiths response, essentially suggesting that she was, at best, disingenuous in saying that they advised her. Ultimately she fell on the sword of her stated standards.

This thread, until you turned it political, was about wealthy footballers getting tucked up by shysters. There was empathy from most posters, me included. You though, have done nothing but whine about tax being daylight robbery etc. Not a word of empathy towards the footballers impacted by it. Not one.

Please give it a rest Whitey. This is about some footballers being stitched up by advisers who were negligent at best, and dishonest at worst. It's not about your personal objection to people (I'm guessing you mostly) having to pay tax.

Great response from them. Every conveyancing firm will always say that they can't give tax advice, and that the client should seek it. Doesn't help Rayner one bit.

As I said yesterday, that's your interpretation. There's these things called facts. Try focusing on them mate.

Ditto the IDF. Watching these people suffer is heartbreaking. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKxWpTOTdzb/?igsh=MTA5MDN0cTd2OGN6Ng==

You're confusing illegal evasion with legal avoidance.

Mate, please take any "tax ain't fair" complaint to the lounge or the ballot box. The issue re these footballers goes way beyond the merits or otherwise of paying tax.

You weren't calling for lower taxes, you said it's theft and a scam. Completely different. Anyways, this is a thread about a specific issue, not your opinion about the merits of paying tax.

Ok mate. If you believe tax is theft and a scam, the discussion is pointless. I spose the government should just spend away, with minimal tax, and the world would be lovely. Bizarre.

Swing

It's nuts, nothing good can come from it. Just keep your head down when you've invited a pile on.

I can't agree with any of that, and it's irrelevant to the issue of these footballers. Tax isn't theft. It's necessary. Some people seek to avoid paying it, and others seek to evade it. The latter is closer to theft than tax itself. How the government spend the money is a separate issue.

Ywp. The local authorities haven't got the cash, so play the system to cause delay. Firstly, the LA refuse to assess for an EHCP. Parents appeal. The bar is a low one, so most parents win on appeal. The LA then refuse to issue an EHCP after assessment. Appeal number 2, mostly successful. After the resultant EHCP, the LA recommends a state school. The parents disagree, appeal, and often persuade the tribunal that the LA school is unsuitable to meet the need as per the EHCP, so the tribunal awards the parents choice of school with transport to go with it. The LA often don't put up a fight at appeal, but by the time all 3 appeals and the assessments have been dealt with, the thick end of 4 years or so has passed, so 4 years of expensive special educational provision has been avoided. Moreover, the kids have been locked out of needed education, with many not getting any education at all. It's a sad system, and I'm not sure what the answer is. SEND kids need the help that they need, but the LA haven't got the budget to supply it.

The scale of that destruction is mind blowing. As the reel says, Hamas must have been hiding in lots of buildings. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNKpO7yIfUE/?igsh=MWZocTN2aXpqbHBvMw==

It's not quite as straightforward as the guidance. Para 12 sch 4ZA Finance Act 2003 is the law that applies. A trust in favour of a child can deem the parents as still owning it. It's fact dependant, and we don't know the details here. That all said, nobody shoves assets into a Trust because they want to pay as much tax as would be payable if the assets were held outside of a trust. I'm more interested in how a £100k ISH salary stretches so far.

I dunno, I'll be upset if they beat us.

Negotiations