𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Yesterday, the deputy PM was quick to inform us that HMRC has cleared her of any wrongdoing, tweeting: “I have been exonerated by HMRC of the accusation that I deliberately sought to avoid tax.” She assured us she’d acted in good faith and was always keen to pay every penny of tax owed. HMRC’s conclusion leaves Rayner free to “get on with my job”. By job, I assume she means her push to replace Keir Starmer as PM.

So should we all move on from this, as the former deputy PM wishes? That might prove difficult. As I said yesterday, the timing was a little too perfect. After a torturously slow nine months, HMRC suddenly came to a quickfire decision, just when Rayner needed it most. Done and dusted in 24 hours. Anybody who’s called HMRC’s hard-pressed helpline knows it can take that long to pick up the phone (although they’re very charming when they do – nice HMRC). So why the sudden explosion of efficiency?

Next time you’re stuck on hold while seeking advice about your tax return, here’s what to do. Call Angela Rayner’s lawyers. HMRC will be back within the day. And with exactly the answer you were looking for. But this isn’t the only thing that doesn’t sit comfortably.

The decision to exonerate her without penalty looks a bit odd too. Under Rachel Reeves, HMRC has been getting more aggressive than ever. Suddenly, it’s gone all wishy washy. Why?

HMRC’s view that Rayner wasn’t careless has left many tax experts mystified. Yesterday, I was contacted by legal expert Andrew Marr, managing partner at top tax specialists Forbes Dawson, and his verdict was clear: “Rayner should not have been cleared of deliberately failing to pay stamp duty land tax.”

Marr added: “She should have been pursued further by HMRC as it’s notoriously tough on others who find themselves in similar situations.”

He said HMRC takes a hard line on penalties too, particularly for stamp duty. Taxpayers may be let off, but must first “demonstrate they responsibly took tax advice or reasonably formed conclusions based on legislation or official guidance”.

Here’s his worry. “If it’s true that Rayner was asked to seek tax advice on two occasions but failed to do so, it is very difficult to see how HMRC has concluded that she was not careless.”

HMRC’s sudden lenience doesn’t tally with Marr’s own bruising professional experience. “If somebody has been advised to seek tax advice around a particular technical point, fails to do so and then underpays tax because of this failure, would HMRC consider this to be careless? From our experience, the answer is very much yes.”

Marr is fighting a case right now in which HMRC insists the taxpayer was careless purely because their advisor was careless. Yet Rayner walks. “Many disgruntled taxpayers who have been hit with penalties will be feeling very angry.”

He urged HMRC to clarify its attitude to penalties, but isn’t getting his hopes up. “HMRC will face a lot of questions about whether it’s acting on a fair basis here, but is likely to say that it doesn’t comment on individual cases.”

Rayner isn’t likely to comment either. She had her say on X yesterday. Today, she has a more urgent priority, becoming PM. When she will no doubt make the rest of us pay even more tax. After all, she always pays her own.