• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

McTallshort said:
Hasn't there been a change in the law now that makes them responsible?
Click to expand...

I'm not in that space now but accountants and solicitors have compliance requirements with their regulatory bodies. Both are subject to periodic audits and investigations and can ultimately be struck off if found guilty of misconduct.

If they give advice that is in breach of the law then yes they will be responsible and will be referred to their regulatory body. That's why most will cover their arses and not commit themselves to 'advising' (especially in writing) as such and will do things by the book i.e. presenting options and letting the client decide.
 
dirty harry said:
Maybe my accountant is just a cowboy, he advises all the time face to face, then presents options in the follow up, and acts a third way in general hahahaha

Love that guy!
Click to expand...
Does he just not takes sides and say you and the HMRC are as bad as each other. Tax law isn't black and white, and there are no good guys in all this.
 
A lot of accountants aren't even qualified. One partner in my last firm had no accountancy qualifications.

Both Senior tax managers I worked at in a top 20 accountancy firm headed up the two main Private client tax groups and neither held accountancy or Chartered tax advisor qualifications.

All of them - were "qualified by experience".

It's different now what with finance getting a lot more complex and to move up you need to have those qualifications.

And yes Solicitors generally exclude any liability to advising on tax. So it will be interesting to see what happens in the Rayner case. Was she asked by right questions, by who and how qualified were they to ask and give advice.
 
Bada-Bing! said:
A lot of accountants aren't even qualified. One partner in my last firm had no accountancy qualifications.

Both Senior tax managers I worked at in a top 20 accountancy firm headed up the two main Private client tax groups and neither held accountancy or Chartered tax advisor qualifications.

All of them - were "qualified by experience".

It's different now what with finance getting a lot more complex and to move up you need to have those qualifications.

And yes Solicitors generally exclude any liability to advising on tax. So it will be interesting to see what happens in the Rayner case. Was she asked by right questions, by who and how qualified were they to ask and give advice.
Click to expand...
If it appears that she asked three people who were not qualified. Who'd be at fault? Her for not asking the right person or the person giving the advice?

I'm guessing bit of both. Still I'm assuming given her role she should know the right person and she'd have better access to the information than most.
 
Saintjay said:
If it appears that she asked three people who were not qualified. Who'd be at fault? Her for not asking the right person or the person giving the advice?

I'm guessing bit of both. Still I'm assuming given her role she should know the right person and she'd have better access to the information than most.
Click to expand...
From a PII perspective if they didn’t ask the right questions and were not qualified to give the advice then the law firm would be negligent and doubt their insurers would pay out - cover the penalty for carelessness and interest.

Rayner is still liable for her own tax affairs and liable on the underpaid SDLT, interest and 30% penalty which HMRC will likely charge.
 
Saintjay said:
If it appears that she asked three people who were not qualified. Who'd be at fault? Her for not asking the right person or the person giving the advice?

I'm guessing bit of both. Still I'm assuming given her role she should know the right person and she'd have better access to the information than most.
Click to expand...

If it was informal advice i.e. friend of a friend or a bloke in the pub who knows a bit about SDLT then it's 100% on her. If she engaged the services of a professional firm and was a client of that firm then there would need to be an investigation to establish the facts.
 
This is what I find ridiculous. Lawyers, accountants etc are paid to deal with these issues precisely because they are deemed complex enough that you need a specialist rather than your average person being able to fully understand it themselves.

If you have an uncommon situation and make an honest attempt to see what you are legally allowed to do and are then given faulty advise, surely ignorance to a degree is a defence? Otherwise surely that's expecting your average person to personally have the knowledge required to judge the legality and makes the whole process of hiring a specialist to deal with it pointless?

Not saying that is necessarily what she did but in general I would have thought a sincere attempt to be legal that ended up not so because of bad professional advice should not be the clients fault.
 
Gavin said:


The right wing media are definitely out to get Rayner. The claim is also false.
Click to expand...

Which parts false? Seen various news outlets commenting on the 2020 compensation story.

Don't get me wrong it's her choice. Just tend to think several sites running the story would all be wary of potential litigation and fact check the info
 
Saintjay said:
Which parts false?
Click to expand...
Technically the part where she received compensation rather than the fact the court appointed a trust for the compensation. Other than that totally accurate.

Apparently she sold a 25% share of her house to the trust for 160k which she used to buy her Hastings flat. Also if the NHS compensation is false, where did the trust money come from?

www.standard.co.uk

Angela Rayner 'used some of her disabled son's NHS compensation to buy second home'

Angela Rayner has admitted she did not pay enough tax when buying a sea front flat but has insisted she made a ‘mistake’
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk

Some extra info on the trust etc here

www.independent.co.uk

Why has Angela Rayner resigned? The key takeaways after tax scandal investigation

The deputy prime minister may have saved as much as £40,000 in tax
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Last edited:
One of the lead organisers of the recent spate of flag shagging, and general anti-immigrant stuff is a convicted people-smuggler...
www.theshadeborough.com

'RAISE THE COLOURS' ORGANISER PREVIOUSLY JAILED FOR ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS INTO UK | The Shade Borough

The main figure behind the “Raise the Colours” flag-raising campaign in England was previously convicted in 2016 for attempting to smuggle four Vietnamese migrants into the UK, a fact confirmed by reputable reporting, adding a controversial layer to the patriotic displays across towns and cities.
www.theshadeborough.com www.theshadeborough.com
www.dailymail.co.uk

Organiser of flag campaign was jailed over migrant smuggling plot

Lee Twamley is part of a group calling themselves 'Churchill's Lions' which last week raised British flags along one of Manchester's main shopping streets.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
10K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top