Raynor the tax dodger

When you are a trustee, you are expected to have more basic knowledge of your responsibilities.

The so called legal advisors she's claimed she's used have turned round and said they didn't advise her. She'll be gone by the end of the day.

Not really related to what I wrote!

I was just trying to get my head around the process. My best guess is that she must have been asked by the conveyancer if a child had a house in trust. It is such an obvious question that it is included in the basic summary of the rules on the government website. The conveyancer would presumably have then said they couldn't advise on that aspect and that AR would have to get her own advice about the tax implications.
 
When you are a trustee, you are expected to have more basic knowledge of your responsibilities.

The so called legal advisors she's claimed she's used have turned round and said they didn't advise her. She'll be gone by the end of the day.
that's not true, the conveyance said they did not deal with taxation advice but she also points to two other legal advisers both of which were trust advisers who also gave her advice.

Should she have taken taxation advice from a taxation expert...hmm trust specialist are supposed to know all the implications of trusts both for the beneficiary and the implications for those forming the trust, its kinda their job.
 
I wonder how many people in the country don't know if they own one or two properties...

:LOL::LOL::LOL:

I wonder how many people in the country are experts in trust law and can correctly answer a question which allegedly two out of three experts got wrong.
 
I wonder how many people in the country don't know if they own one or two properties...
a lot surprisingly, you would amazed how many don't know when say a parent dies and leaves their interest in a property to a child with the right of the spouse to live their half until their death.
 
I would point out that dealing with a medical trust is a nightmare as there is a disconnect between what a court orders, as they have control over the trust formation and other legislation such as tax. Courts simply ignore other legislation outside of their consideration, their sole focus is on the beneficiary of the trust.

In this case a divorce had taken place and was a court settlement not a private one as children were involved, normally couples act as trustees but when you divorce that trust must become a court appointed trust, courts regularly appoint themselves legal guardians and just as often remove themselves as guardians. Simply put a court can remove you at a bang of a gavel from being a child's parent and as quickly reinstate you, basically they grant you access to your own children without you having any rights over the child until a divorce is complete and you agree the terms with a court on parental responsibility and satisfy the court that you are carrying them out.

I suspect that this will be one of those cases, a court telling you are not the legal guardian and you acting at the courts direction , only to find out later that in the eye's of another piece of law you were still the parent all along for the purposes of that other law. If you are told by a judge you are not longer a child's parent who do you believe ?

Judges are literally a law unto themselves.
Family courts have far too much power.

Families have literally fled the country for fear of having family courts take away their children

The family courts have a privacy preventing anybody from discussing it outside of the court….miscarriages of justice can’t be exposed. Journos can attend court but can’t report anything without consent.
 
that's not true, the conveyance said they did not deal with taxation advice but she also points to two other legal advisers both of which were trust advisers who also gave her advice.

Should she have taken taxation advice from a taxation expert...hmm trust specialist are supposed to know all the implications of trusts both for the beneficiary and the implications for those forming the trust, its kinda their job.
Sorry, i missed out an important word in my previous post (now edited).

As a trustee, you are expected to know what you have greater responsibilities than a layman. As such, and particularly as an MP and Housing Minister, you should be aware that you need to consult with proper legal advisors. Interesting to note that the conveyancers she used have denied offering legal advice on this point, as have the solicitors she used for the trust.

Anyway, just read that she's resigned. The right thing for her to do in my opinion.
 
Back
Top