Bluff and bluster fails.

[MNW67]

go back to the link you posted even "tax lawyers" who support the Labour Party - are clear.

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.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

according to you who was that?

I see two different names.

 

[MNW67]

according to you who was that?

I see two different names.

Dan Neidle is Tax Policy Associates:

This is a story I’ve been working on with the Sunday Times. They’ve published their story today – this article gives the technical background, and my view of what it means.

 

[motorbiking]

Dan Neidle is Tax Policy Associates:

others agree

Prime Minister faces IHT furore over land he bought for parent's donkey sanctuary | Today's Wills and Probate

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has tackled allegations of tax avoidance after he benefitted from the increase in value of land acquired for his parents

todayswillsandprobate.co.uk

The furore has erupted because by placing the land in trust, he avoided its inclusion in estate calculations and benefited from the substantial increase in value; the land was sold alongside a small adjacent strip belonging to his father for £320,000 in 2022, valuing the field at around £295,000. The nature of the trust meant the land belonged to Starmer personally and no valuation of the land was required for inheritance tax calculations.

 

[MNW67]

others agree

The story is dead. Nobody cares. It was a sad little conference hatchet job. To summarise, Starmer is accused of putting a field into trust in 1996 in a way which could never possibly have saved any tax. What is the story?

 

[motorbiking]

The story is dead. Nobody cares. It was a sad little conference hatchet job. To summarise, Starmer is accused of putting a field into trust in 1996 in a way which could never possibly have saved any tax. What is the story?

thats obviously untrue.

PS. any idea what happened to NWGS2?

 

[MNW67]

The furore has erupted because by placing the land in trust, he avoided its inclusion in estate calculations and benefited from the substantial increase in value; the land was sold alongside a small adjacent strip belonging to his father for £320,000 in 2022, valuing the field at around £295,000. The nature of the trust meant the land belonged to Starmer personally and no valuation of the land was required for inheritance tax calculations.

That is the wrong question. Again. You need to compare how putting the land in trust might potentially have saved tax as opposed to Starmer maintaining outright ownership throughout. Instead, you are comparing the trust option with him making an outright gift to his parents. Something which Starmer has never claimed he intended. He even said to Parliament that he had always kept the legal title.

 

[MNW67]

PS. any idea what happened to NWGS2?

He asked for his account to be deleted yesterday. Said he was going to be very busy with work and could do with a break from GD.

 

[motorbiking]

That is the wrong question. Again. You need to compare how putting the land in trust might potentially have saved tax as opposed to Starmer maintaining outright ownership throughout. Instead, you are comparing the trust option with him making an outright gift to his parents. Something which Starmer has never claimed he intended. He even said to Parliament that he had always kept the legal title.

I'm quoting the article.

 

[MNW67]

I'm quoting the article.

I know. I read the same article yesterday. It is an appalling bit of nonsense, IMO, because it fails to ask the right question. Everyone is comparing the wrong two situations. This whole episode has been so shabbily presented by some parts of the media.

 

[motorbiking]

I know. I read the same article yesterday. It is an appalling bit of nonsense, IMO, because it fails to ask the right question. Everyone is comparing the wrong two situations. This whole episode has been so shabbily presented by some parts of the media.

the right question being did - he structure it to avoid tax.

When you look at the detail... I'm not sure this was ever about Donkeys. The value increase was based on his ability to combine it with the access strip.

 

[MNW67]

the right question being did - he structure it to avoid tax.

When you look at the detail... I'm not sure this was ever about Donkeys. The value increase was based on his ability to combine it with the access strip.

No. Because there was never any potential tax benefit to the alleged trust over him keeping outright ownership for himself. Either for IHT or CGT. You need to read the rules on settlor reversion trusts pre-2006.

He ended up paying £55k in CGT.

 

[motorbiking]

No. Because there was never any potential tax benefit to the alleged trust over him keeping outright ownership for himself. Either for IHT or CGT. You need to read the rules on settlor reversion trusts pre-2006.

He ended up paying £55k in CGT.

A possible saving of £63K.

 

[MNW67]

A possible saving of £63K.

That's interesting. How did you come to that figure? Remember, we are not comparing the alleged trust with Starmer's parents owning the land outright. That is the red herring everyone seems to be falling for. We are comparing the alleged trust with Starmer owning the land outright throughout.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Mone gets away with millions, it's ok they've got no money. Poor little business failed.

Starmer being hounded for much less, and incorrectly and he is ......... . Put your own words in there.