Report comment

The law is too complicated. Even HMRC's advice on their website is of questionable accuracy. It refers to a trust beneficiary having a right to reside for life in, or the right to the income from, a property, and says that in that case the beneficiary or, if the beneficiary is a minor, the parents of that beneficiary (and the spouses of such parents) will have to pay higher rate SDLT if they purchase a property. However, a beneficiary may have an interest in possession under a trust which is less than a life interest - for example, they might have the right to reside in a certain property for a period of twenty years. I believe that this would still mean that that that beneficiary or, if the beneficiary is a minor, that beneficiary's parent or step-parent, would be liable for higher rate SDLT when purchasing a property. If I am right, then that shows that not even HMRC are able, on their website, clearly to explain the SDLT rules.

I would have sympathy for Rayner if she and her party had opposed the complicating of the SDLT rules necessitated by the introduction of the higher rate, with all the complicated rules that went with it as to who would be liable for the higher rate and who not, but I do not believe that they did. When MPs vote for complicated rules, if anyone objects that the rules will be too complicated and people (or businesses, or whatever) will not be able to understand them, the invariable response is that people will have to get the hang of them, and take expert advice if necessary. My sympathy for Rayner is therefore attenuated.

Also, the rules seem unfair. One does not necessarily get a choice whether one's minor child or step-child gets a beneficial interest in a residential property (it might be brought about by someone else, without one's consent), nor, in every instance, will a parent, let alone a step-parent, benefit from it (maybe the parents of the child are estranged, and one parent never gets any contact with the child). It does not therefore seem very fair that that is enough to trigger a liability to the higher rate of SDLT on one's purchase. It is perhaps more unfair if the child is disabled. However, parliament makes these laws. Anyone who was a member of parliament when they were voted in, and did not vote against them, has only him or herself to blame.

If Rayner did vote against the rules, then I shall take back what I say concerning her.