What was HMRC's investigation into Angela Rayner's tax affairs all about?

"Angela Rayner has been cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness over her tax affairs, the Guardian reported, paving the way for a potential leadership bid as Keir Starmer's grip on power unravels. When the then deputy prime minister bought a flat in Hove with her partner in April 2025, she paid the standard rate of stamp duty 30,000 on the 800,000 transaction."

"That purchase was part-funded by the proceeds of selling her 25% share in the family home, in her constituency of Ashton-under-Lyne, to a trust set up in the name of her disabled son. The trust had been created by court order years earlier, after her son was awarded damages due to a medical incident when he was a baby."

"After a series of press stories revealed that the Ashton-under-Lyne property was owned by her son's trust, however, Rayner took additional legal advice, and accepted that she should have paid the higher rate of stamp duty, 70,000, levied on second homeowners. She also conceded that she should have taken advice from a tax specialist during the purchase an omission the prime minister's ethics adviser Laurie Magnus described as, deeply regrettable."

"HMRC did not find her to be careless in the way she approached the transaction including the fact that she did not seek specialist tax advice, instead relying on her conveyancer and therefore levied no penalty. But it nevertheless found she was liable for the higher rate of stamp duty."

Angela Rayner was cleared by HMRC of deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness regarding her tax affairs. She bought a flat in Hove in April 2025 with her partner and paid stamp duty at the standard rate. The purchase was partly funded by proceeds from selling her 25% share of her family home to a trust set up for her disabled son, created by court order after a medical incident. After press reports revealed the property was owned by the son’s trust, Rayner sought further legal advice and accepted that the higher stamp duty rate for second homeowners should have applied. HMRC found she was not careless and imposed no penalty, but determined she was liable for the higher stamp duty rate.

Read at www.theguardian.com