Report comment

I too was curious about LPP but be that as it may.

On the SDLT point, it is not rocket science as the media would have us believe.

Let us imagine a hypothetical scenario.

You are a solicitor or licenced conveyancer acting on a purchase. It is standard practice to ask the client if they own another residential property. Your client says there is a property held in trust for their child and they are a trustee but they do not have a beneficial interest in the property. You do not know if the higher rate applies (I would not have done fist off but I would have suspected that a property which you own as a trustee does not make you liable for higher rate SDLT). You have at least to have a look because your client will be unhappy if you give them the wrong advice. No doubt it is all in the Finance Act 2003 but a first port of call might be gov.uk. You do a Google search - "stamp duty land tax second home gov.uk".

You very quickly find the link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property . You see the heading “What property the higher rates apply to”. Click that and you get the following text:-

"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"

There is the answer. It really is that simple. No need for a specialist tax advisor, leading counsel or whatever. It is pretty plain. You now know you have a problem to resolve. You would need to ask to see the trust deed and I would check the whole thing in the actual legislation.

I have some sympathy for Angela Raynor (knowing she has just resigned). Obviously I do not know what she was asked and what she told her conveyancers. However, it is very hard to see how this can have happened based on the information which has been made public. I do not know if we will see the report of the ethics advisor which may throw more light on this.

I do not seek to blame anyone. I am not a labour voter. Policitcs aside, I do like to see fair play. Giving Ms Raynor the benefit of an assumption that she acted in good faith, I am sad that she has resigned.