The facts: a flat in Hove, a family trust, and a costly misread of the rules
The Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister is facing an awkward tax bill. Angela Rayner has acknowledged she underpaid stamp duty when she bought an £800,000 seaside flat in Hove in May 2025. She initially paid around £30,000, assuming she qualified for the standard rate. After fresh advice from senior tax counsel, she now accepts she should have paid the higher rate for additional properties.
The missing chunk is big. On an £800,000 purchase, the extra charge comes in at about £40,000 under the rules advisers say apply in her case. That pushes the total liability towards the £70,000 mark, instead of the roughly £30,000 she originally paid.
Why did she think the standard rate applied? In January 2025, she disposed of her remaining interest in her family home in Ashton-under-Lyne by selling it into a trust set up for her disabled son. She used the proceeds as the deposit on the Hove flat, and took a mortgage for the rest. On that reading, she no longer owned another home at the point she completed the Hove purchase.
The sting lies in what tax lawyers call “deeming provisions.” These rules are designed to stop people sidestepping higher rates by moving property into certain trusts while still keeping the benefit. If, under the trust, Rayner had rights to live in the Ashton-under-Lyne property for life, or retained a meaningful interest, then for stamp duty she can be treated as if she still owns it. In that scenario, the Hove flat counts as an additional property, triggering the second-home surcharge.
Andrew Marr, a partner at the specialist firm Forbes Dawson, puts it simply: where a trust lets the original owner keep enjoying a property, anti-avoidance rules can treat that home as still theirs for stamp duty. That is why fresh legal advice appears to have flipped Rayner’s tax position.
There’s also the residency picture. The Ashton-under-Lyne address remains her family home, and she is registered there for official, financial, and medical purposes. In London, she has access to a grace-and-favour apartment at Admiralty House for government duties. None of that is unusual for senior ministers, but it makes the paper trail more sensitive in a tax case that turns on who owns and lives where.
So what exactly is owed? Based on an £800,000 price, standard stamp duty is around £27,500 to £30,000 depending on thresholds. The second-home rate, described to her as a flat extra 5% in this case, adds roughly £40,000. If HMRC agrees, she will need to amend her return, pay the extra tax, and settle interest backdated to completion day.
The rules, the risks, and the bigger policy test
How does this play out with HMRC? First comes correction. Buyers file a stamp duty return within tight deadlines after completion. If a material mistake comes to light, you amend the return and pay what’s due. Interest accrues automatically. The harder question is penalties.
Penalties hinge on behaviour. If HMRC thinks the error was “careless,” a percentage of the underpaid tax can be charged, with the starting point around the lower end of the scale when the taxpayer comes forward and cooperates. If it decides the conduct was “deliberate,” the percentage jumps sharply, and can be much higher if the facts were concealed. The gap between careless and deliberate is huge, and it turns on evidence.
There’s also the standards piece. The matter could be referred to the independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, to examine whether the first round of advice Rayner relied on was based on full facts. Ethics advisers do not rule on tax law, but they do look at candour, judgment, and whether a minister took reasonable steps to get things right.
None of this means trusts are improper. Trusts for disabled beneficiaries are common and often essential for care planning. The issue is the overlay of anti-avoidance rules that treat people as still owning a home if they keep a right to live there or enjoy it. That can make a transfer look clean for one purpose but not for stamp duty.
The arithmetic shows why small technical points matter. On large purchases, a surcharge that adds a flat percentage can dwarf the basic bill. In Rayner’s case, the disputed element—about £40,000—exceeds what many buyers pay in total under the standard rates.
The political optics are brutal. The minister responsible for housing policy misread the very rules her department’s stakeholders wrestle with daily. Opponents call that hypocrisy; allies say it proves how byzantine the system has become. Both can be true. Stamp duty is full of edge cases—divorce settlements, inherited shares of homes, mixed-use properties, and trusts that split legal and beneficial ownership. The law tries to catch avoidance without trapping ordinary family arrangements. The result is complexity.
Tax practitioners point to the role of “deeming” provisions—legal fictions that simplify enforcement but complicate life for buyers. You can be treated as owning something you do not hold in your name, or as not owning something you technically do. That helps HMRC police loopholes. It also makes outcomes hard to predict without specialist advice.
What could change? Critics want a simpler property tax regime that reduces cliff edges and odd incentives. Some argue the surcharge should be rethought or replaced, because it punishes mobility and creates traps for people moving for work while sorting out their old home. Others would keep the surcharge but rewrite the trust rules so families caring for disabled relatives are not snared unless there’s clear avoidance. Any fix would need to balance fairness, revenue, and the housing market’s delicate mood.
Where does this leave Rayner? She says she has sought new counsel and will pay what is due. HMRC will decide whether penalties apply. If the ethics adviser looks in, the focus will be on her conduct—what she disclosed, to whom, and when—not on re-running the tax calculation. The paper trail around the trust—its terms, her rights, and how the family home is used—will be central.
One last point for context: stamp duty is triggered on completion day, and higher rates turn on what you own at that moment. If you still count as owning a major interest in another home—because a trust or life interest says you do—the surcharge kicks in, even if you feel, in everyday terms, that you have moved on. That gap between ordinary language and legal effect sits at the heart of the Angela Rayner stamp duty dispute.
The next milestones are straightforward to track: any amended return and payment; HMRC’s view on penalties; and whether the case is escalated to the ethics adviser. Beyond that, watch for fresh calls to rewrite the rules. When the person steering housing policy gets tripped up by the system, it’s a sign the system is due a hard look.
Post A Comment