Rayner is not careless (apparently)
15th May 2026
Posted in Articles by Andrew Marr
We understand that Angela Rayner has ‘got off’ without a penalty for underpaying around £40,000 of SDLT on a house purchase. The ins and outs of this were much publicised at the time and the gist of reported facts were as follows:
1. In 2020 Rayner placed 50% of her family home into a trust for her minor child.
2. In 2023 she got divorced (but still continued to co-parent in the family home).
3. In January 2025 Rayner sold the remaining 50% of her family home to the trust.
4. In May 2025 she acquired a Hove property for £800,000 but did not pay the 5% SDLT surcharge equating to £40,000.
Because of the property held by the child’s trust Rayner should have paid the 5% surcharge, in simple terms because the rules treated her as owning the property held by the trust. This Tax Bite is not about the technical details but rather the question of penalties. It has recently come to light that although Rayner ultimately paid her SDLT liability she was not hit with a fine. Some people may be forgiven for thinking that HMRC are treating her more favourably than other members of the public.
The SDLT penalty regime
When HMRC considers that SDLT has been underpaid they will invite taxpayers to prove that they have not been careless. I include their typical questions below with my commentary in bold.
1. What steps did you take to understand the relevant rules before filing the return? Apparently, she declined to seek proper advice after being asked to do so on two occasions.
2. Did you research HMRC guidance, SDLT manuals, or Tribunal decisions? A google of ‘HMRC SDLT children’s trust’ would have taken her to the answer. Try it!
3. Please explain what steps you took to satisfy yourself that the SDLT position advised was correct and that the return you submitted accurately reflected your own understanding of how the rules applied to the property. As the specialist advice was not sought then I expect that the answer to this is ‘nothing’.
4. What information and documents did you provide the advisor? Again, we must assume this was nothing.
5. How did you satisfy yourself that the advisor understood all the relevant facts? If there was no relevant advisor, she didn’t.
6. Did you ask the advisor to explain the reasoning behind the surcharge not being applicable? No formal advice received.
7. Did you query any areas where you were unsure or where the advice seemed unclear? No formal advice received.
8. If you were unsure about any aspect, what steps did you take to address the uncertainty? No formal advice received.
9. Please can we see a copy of the advice received? No formal advice received.
10. Did you consider the risk of challenge or alternative interpretations? No formal advice received.
Forbes Dawson view
It is difficult to see how HMRC could conclude that no penalties were appropriate under these benchmarks. It would be useful if they could clarify their code of practice in light of this case. Given that the issue was clearly ‘prompted’, having apparently been exposed by a newspaper, even if HMRC wanted to reduce the default 30% penalty, there are rules to stop this being reduced below 15%. There have been some reports of Rayner getting advice that the SDLT may not have been due from a KC. Perhaps this was used as a bargaining chip to allow her to settle the SDLT on a non-penalty basis (pure speculation admittedly). Although HMRC obviously (and fairly) cannot comment on individual cases, there may be quite a few taxpayers who feel aggrieved that they have been hit with penalties while Rayner has been let off. It could be seen as being “One rule for them…”. On a practical point any taxpayers who are facing penalties for carelessness may be able to use the Rayner case to their advantage.
