Bluff and bluster fails.

[Notch7]

Starmer bought his parents a field at the back of their house for £20,000 because his mother liked donkeys. He later sold it for almost £300,000 in 2022. The obvious structure would have been that Starmer owned the land throughout this period while his parents simply used it for their donkeys.

He forgot to declare it to the parliamentary authorities for some years while an MP, for which he apologised at the time. And in a statement to the parliamentary standards commissioner in 2022, Starmer said: “I immediately gifted the land to my parents for as long as they should live but I did not transfer the legal title – that remained with me.”

This language around “gifting” has led legal experts to suggest to the Sunday Times that a trust may have been created, which could have helped him avoid any future inheritance tax liability upon the death of his parents. His mother died in 2015 and his father in 2018 and their estate does not appear to have been big enough for inheritance tax to apply.

So he owned the field.
When his parents died he still owned the field.

Where’s the avoidance of inheritance tax?

 

[fillyboy]

So he owned the field.
When his parents died he still owned the field.

Where’s the avoidance of inheritance tax?

It's the Donkeys I feel sorry for.

 

[Vinty]

Tory scum sure knows how to thieve

The word Tory is the Irish word for thief.

 

[Highway Man]

So it’s man buys field, some donkeys graze it, man sells field and pays tax on the profit. Donkeys go somewhere else. Very intelligent people create a mountain out of a molehill.

When you say the donkeys go somewhere else, where do they go, isn't that uprooting them and turning them out of their home just so somebody can make a profit. If the donkeys were upgrading to a better field with better facilities then ok it could be argued it is in their interest, but I would want more specifics of where they are being moved to.

 

[blup]

When you say the donkeys go somewhere else, where do they go, isn't that uprooting them and turning them out of their home just so somebody can make a profit. If the donkeys were upgrading to a better field with better facilities then ok it could be argued it is in their interest, but I would want more specifics of where they are being moved to.

Don’t know the details, maybe they had to go because they were noisy “neigh”bours.

 

[motorbiking]

As above. It’s been obvious all along.

Probably why I avoid debates.

It’s funny how you educate him and he declares he knew all along.

Of course the bigger story is that the PM lied, as well as creating a structure that was intentionally to avoid tax. Whether, tax was actually avoided due to the value of the estate is not so important.

 

[motorbiking]

So he owned the field.
When his parents died he still owned the field.

Where’s the avoidance of inheritance tax?

Not what he said. I’ve posted the interview. You can see the panic on his face when he realised he’d exposed himself.

 

[motorbiking]

Now that we have exposed the PM. Back to the OP - here is the judgement.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Secretary-of-State-for-Health-and-Social-Care-v-PPE-Medpro.pdf

 

[securespark]

- first rule of litigation - don't sue anyone who can't pay.

Was there any crime involved?

 

[MNW67]

So he owned the field.
When his parents died he still owned the field.

Where’s the avoidance of inheritance tax?

When you read the full story, the whole "trust" idea was invented by the Sunday Times.

And when you drill down into the tax rules, there would have been absolutely no advantage in doing it the way it is claimed Starmer did it, compared to keeping it in his sole name. That is the most frustrating part of the story. Nobody in the media has gone through and said, this is what the tax rules would have been if he had kept it in his own name, and this is what the tax rules would have been in a life interest trust. If they had done so they would have seen that the rules for IHT and CGT were actually identical both ways. He is being accused, with zero evidence, of using a tax structure which could never have been of any advantage.

 

[Knave of Hearts]

It's the Donkeys I feel sorry for.

Don't be an ass.

 

[blup]

When you read the full story, the whole "trust" idea was invented by the Sunday Times.

And when you drill down into the tax rules, there would have been absolutely no advantage in doing it the way it is claimed Starmer did it, compared to keeping it in his sole name. That is the most frustrating part of the story. Nobody in the media has gone through and said, this is what the tax rules would have been if he had kept it in his own name, and this is what the tax rules would have been in a life interest trust. If they had done so they would have seen that the rules for IHT and CGT were actually identical both ways. He is being accused, with zero evidence, of using a tax structure which could never have been of any advantage.

The trust - if he set one up at all- might not have been registrable at all back then, hence my comment that he might have torn it up when it was clear it would serve no purpose

 

[JohnD]

I see the chicken biker is working hard to distract attention from the Tory Bra Baroness who used her Tory buddy contacts in government to jump to the front of the queue and loot many millions from the nation for worthless tat.

And then lied that it was nothing to do with her.

 

[MNW67]

The trust - if he set one up at all- might not have been registrable at all back then, hence my comment that he might have torn it up when it was clear it would serve no purpose

I don't really see the connection. I have been trying to compare the rules back in 1996 when this "trust" was supposed to have been created. At that time, there seems to have been no potential tax advantage at all to doing it the way it was alleged. If Starmer had kept full ownership, any potential tax liability would have been exactly the same as if he had used a "trust". Nothing in the media has actually said anything different. It is all hints and innuendos.

I never even noticed this story at the weekend. It seems to have quickly died a death. If MBK hadn't brought it up as a distraction, I doubt anybody on here would have ever discussed it.

 

[JohnD]

.... If MBK hadn't brought it up as a distraction, I doubt anybody on here would have ever discussed it.

That was his objective.