In the interview with Laura Kuenssberg he states clearly that there was no trust. That is the only interview I know about. Which interview are you referring to. The only people who claim there was a trust are the Sunday Times. But they have zero evidence.
Bluff and bluster fails.
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
In the interview with Laura Kuenssberg he states clearly that there was no trust. That is the only interview I know about. Which interview are you referring to. The only people who claim there was a trust are the Sunday Times. But they have zero evidence.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
You claim legal expertise. What in your considered opinion does a lawyer mean by “I immediately gifted the land to my parents for so long as they should live”.
Thieving Baroness Moan and her greedy husband stole tens of millions from UK taxpayers and all your other deflective waffle is irrelevant.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
of course this is nonsense.
That was just a first bit of research to give other posters a starting point to work from. After that I found more details. It is clear that there was no potential tax advantage whatsoever when this "trust" was allegedly set up from doing it that way. Both CGT and IHT rules were identical between Starmer retaining full ownership and putting it in a life interest trust.
£122 MILLION and counting. It has in fact cost UK taxpayers a lot more than this, however.
Greedy grasping thieving Tory scum of the lowest order.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
So, this is nothing to do with the interview as you claimed. You therefore agree that, in the only interview he has given, he stated categorically that there was no trust.
As regards that particular statement, it could mean two things. It could either mean a life interest trust was created or it could mean he allowed his parents the use of the land for their lifetimes whilst retaining ownership. If you remember studying Trusts Law at university, you will know that these sort of verbal pronouncements are open to interpretation and have led to many court cases. Unless he gave further clarification, the comment is ambiguous.
Chicken boy - fail.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
other experts disagree.
You mean the person who researched the story for the Sunday Times and now has egg all over his face.
Correct.
And chicken boy left distraught and on the wrong side of justice. - again.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
go back to the link you posted even "tax lawyers" who support the Labour Party - are clear.
UPDATE: 10am Sunday 28 September. Sir Keir just told Laura Kuenssberg that he didn’t create a trust. That is hard to understand when The Sunday Times has been asking Sir Keir about a trust for a month, and he at no point denied there was a trust. It also makes it hard to explain the form of words Sir Keir used in his letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner: “I immediately gifted the land to my parents for so long as they should live”. To a lawyer, that means a trust.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,200
- Reaction score
- 6,499
- Country
how come?
That is the same man who researched the Sunday Times story. This whole story was his idea! He is just trying to get the egg off his face after spending a month barking up the wrong tree.
