CP
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is facing calls for an ethics investigation into her tax and housing arrangements after admitting she removed her name from the deeds of her family home before purchasing a seaside flat, a move which saved her £40,000 in stamp duty.
On Friday night, Ms Rayner confirmed she had taken her name off the ownership documents of her family house in Greater Manchester before buying a property in Hove, East Sussex, around 250 miles away. At the same time, she maintained that her former home in Tameside remained her primary residence.
By doing so, she has avoided paying thousands in council tax on a third property, a grace-and-favour flat in Admiralty House, central London, where she lives while carrying out her ministerial duties.
The Conservative Party has referred the matter to Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests, arguing that Ms Rayner’s actions amount to “unethical” conduct. Sir Laurie will decide in the coming days whether to open a formal investigation.
Kevin Hollinrake MP, Chairman of the Conservative Party, set out the party’s case in a detailed letter to Sir Laurie, in which he accused the Deputy Prime Minister of “hypocritical tax avoidance”.
Mr Hollinrake wrote:
Dear Sir Laurie,
ANGELA RAYNER: BREACH OF THE MINISTERIAL CODE
I am writing to request that you open an investigation into the conduct of Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, relating to her tax affairs and her Ministerial residence in Admiralty House.
As you will be aware, as part of the Ministerial Interests regime, Ministers are asked to confirm that their tax affairs are up to date and that the arrangement of their affairs is consistent with their overarching duty to comply with the law.
The Ministerial Code also provides that “where a minister is allocated an official residence, they must ensure that all personal tax liabilities, including any council tax, are properly discharged and that they personally pay such liabilities”.
Ms Rayner is supposedly occupying her grace and favour residence in Admiralty House as a second home, and as a result, (after month of obfuscation by Ministers) the Government has finally admitted that the Cabinet Office is paying her council tax bill. She purports that her house in Tameside is her primary home.
She does not reside in this property. The Conservative Party has written to the local council to ask that she is struck off the electoral register. That representation is enclosed in any annex to this letter, and will be of relevance to you in the context of the Minister making false representations to the Cabinet Office, and the tests that you should consider on residency. Of particular note is the HMRC guidance cited on how residency is determined.
Moreover, it has been reported that she has removed herself from the title deeds of her Tameside home in order to avoid the £40,000 second homes stamp duty surcharge on her new weekend residence in Hove. Firstly, this is hypocritical tax avoidance, by a Minister who supports higher taxes on family homes, high-value homes and second homes. But for the purposes of the Ministerial Code, it collapses the house of cards that Tameside is her primary home.
Whilst the stamp duty surcharge is based on properties owned rather than residency, she has effectively declared to HMRC that Hove is her primary home, whilst telling Cabinet Office that Tameside is her primary home. Such statements on her residency are contradictory. She is paying second homes council tax to Brighton and Hove council on a property that she tells HMRC is not a second home. This may be lawful, but it is inappropriate tax avoidance for a Minister subject to higher standards of conduct.
The Deputy Prime Minster has also briefed the media – presumably through her special advisers – that Tameside is her primary home for council tax purposes. This would appear to be a false statement designed to mislead if at the same time she had removed herself from ownership of that property to avoid paying stamp duty on her new home.
Given Tameside is clearly not her primary home, I would maintain that Admiralty House is likely to be her primary home – where she spends the majority of her time as a Minister. If so, it would be contrary to Cabinet Office protocol and the Ministerial Code for the Cabinet Office to continue to pay her council tax. As with the Prime Minister and Chancellor, she must pay the council tax bill personally. Cabinet Office has claimed that the council tax liability has been “properly discharged” – it cannot be proper if it based on false and contradictory statements.
It is in this light that I believe the Ministerial Code has been breached, and her tax affairs are not in good order. This directly engages her conduct as a Minister.
This is particularly acute given her Ministerial responsibilities for council tax, housing policy and electoral law. It is also at odds with the assertion by the Prime Minister in the foreword to the Ministerial Code of “the higher standards that the British people expect and that ministers must now follow” and the general principle that “Ministers should recognise that as office-holders, they are held to the highest possible standards of proper conduct, and ensure that they are living up to those standards in their words and actions”.
I believe an investigation is justified, and Cabinet Office should cease paying her council tax bill on Admiralty House. Her wider behaviour as a Minister is unethical and lacks integrity, and this necessitates a formal investigation of whether the Ministerial Code has been breached. If so, at the very least, an appropriate sanction could be to strip her of her Ministerial residence. You will also want to consider whether the Deputy Prime Minister must now recuse herself from all policy matters relating to taxation on second homes, given her skin in the game.
I am placing this letter in the public domain.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Hollinrake
Chairman of the Conservative & Unionist Party
Mr Hollinrake added that Ms Rayner’s role as Housing Secretary made the issue “particularly acute”, given her responsibility for policies affecting housing and taxation.
Next Steps
Sir Laurie Magnus will decide whether the allegations merit a full inquiry under the Ministerial Code. If such an investigation were launched and a breach found, Ms Rayner could face sanctions ranging from reprimand to the loss of her ministerial residence.
Ms Rayner has not commented further since her admission on Friday night but has previously insisted that her Tameside house remained her main home.
The Cabinet Office has said her council tax liability at Admiralty House “has been properly discharged”.
Rayner now facing questions over capital gains tax on Ashton home
Deputy PM may have benefited from tax exemption on former property
Angela Rayner may have benefited from a “prime residence” capital gains tax exemption on her former Ashton property despite questions about which of her three properties is truly her main home.
Known as private residence relief, the rule applies only to main homes and offers a 100 per cent relief on capital gains tax, which is paid on any increase in value.
Ms Rayner may have made use of the relief when disposing of her share of her constituency home earlier this year, when she removed her name from the deeds of the property, tax experts said.
Ms Rayner may also have benefited from a separate capital gains tax exemption that protects divorcing couples transferring assets, they added.
On Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that she had disposed of her interest in her former family home in Ashton, before buying a seaside flat on the south coast – a move thought to have saved her £40,000 in stamp duty.
One tax expert said: “If you took sensible basic advice, you’d transfer that as part of the divorce order, so there’d be no capital gains tax.
“The other option is that she’s claimed that property, the Ashton property, to be her main residence, so either way she’s got some form of capital gains tax protection.”
It comes amid rising confusion about where the Deputy Prime Minister actually spends most of her time.
Ms Rayner faces a sleaze inquiry into her tax arrangements, with senior Conservatives claiming that her behaviour had been “unethical”. Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial standards, will decide in the coming days whether to launch an investigation.
Sources insisted that she has paid all tax due, and there is no suggestion that she has illegally evaded a capital gains tax bill.
Ms Rayner did not say whether she had benefited from the relief when questioned on Saturday night.
The Tories said she now had additional questions to answer about her increasingly complex affairs.
Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said: “When working families and businesses are being hammered by Labour’s tax hikes, Angela Rayner must be transparent.
“The Deputy Prime Minister can’t set rules for others when there are some serious questions left unanswered about whether she has adhered to them herself.”
Greg Smith, the Conservative MP for Mid-Buckinghamshire, said: “She likes to rail against anyone of any wealth, and play the class-warrior card all the time. It’s time for her to be put under that same spotlight.
“With what we’re led to believe on capital gains tax on primary residences, which would be a total outrage, if she’s played the system before they bring that in, there will be a lot of raised eyebrows.”
The Telegraph: continue reading
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply