What’s all this about Angela Rayner dodging stamp duty land tax (SDLT)?
5th September 2025
Posted in Articles, Property Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax by Forbes Dawson
This week Forbes Dawson have been heavily involved in discussing Angela Rayner’s recent tax blunder with various UK media outlets. We have featured in the Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, GB News and LBC radio. But what is it all about?
The issue all revolves around the stamp duty land tax (‘SDLT’) position on Angela Rayner’s purchase of a seaside flat in Hove and the question of whether she was liable for the ‘second home SDLT surcharge’ of £40,000 (5% of the £800,000 cost of the home).
The 5% surcharge is broadly meant to apply to a purchaser of a second property. The default position is that the charge will apply if the purchaser owns two or more dwellings at the end of the day of the purchase. The main exception to this rule is where the replacement of main residence exemption applies. This can apply if a previous main residence has been disposed of within three years of the acquisition of a new property which is intended to be a replacement main residence.
Rayner has now admitted that the surcharge should have been due on the Hove property. Below I try to disentangle what really happened.
Facts presented by Rayner and the SDLT analysis
- In 2020 she Rayner placed some of her family home into a trust for her minor child.
- In 2023 she got divorced (but still continued to co-parent in the family home).
- In January 2025 Rayner sold the remaining portion of her family home to the trust.
- In May 2025 she acquired the Hove property for £800,000 but did not pay the 5% SDLT surcharge equating to £40,000.
Having now sought the advice of ‘expert legal counsel’, Rayner accepts that she should have paid the surcharge. The real reason for this lies in the SDLT legislation (paragraph 12 of Schedule 7ZA to Finance Act 2003). This essentially says that for the purposes of the rules Ms Rayner is still treated as holding the property that is in trust for her minor child, such that the surcharge applied. Interestingly, she would have been OK if the trustees had been acting under powers granted by a court appointment in respect of the child under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but presumably this was not the case.
Forbes Dawson view
Rayner has mentioned that she sought specialist trust advice and conveyancing advice at the outset. She also says that expert SDLT advice was sought after the media furore kicked off. However, I have not seen anything to suggest that she sought proper SDLT advice before submitting her SDLT return.
If I were being charitable, I would say that conveyancing solicitors sometimes give the impression that they are providing SDLT advice, even though this is usually expressly excluded in the terms of engagement. I should also make the clear point that the house buyer should be seeking expert SDLT advice – particularly when the affairs are complicated.
If I were being less charitable, I would say that the Deputy Prime Minister (and Housing Secretary) should appreciate that the position with her family home is somewhat complicated. Consequently, she should have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that she was following the letter of the law.
Having said all this, all Ms Rayner has to do to knock this whole scandal on the head is to produce a letter that proves that she took proper SDLT advice before she purchased the Hove property. If the tax adviser – supplied with all the facts – got things wrong, then her job should be safe. However, if she simply took a ‘punt’ without taking any SDLT advice, then her whole competency as Deputy Prime Minister would be called into question. At that point, her only hope will be that Keir Starmer is extremely lenient.
