OH Angie Baby

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

She obviously did Feedy. HMRC said so. You just don’t like their decision.

Mendacious nonsense.

HMRC have not said anything of the sort, as they never comment on individual cases.

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/14/why-did-hmrc-not-charge-angela-rayner-a-penalty/

Have a read of this. Its not just me that doesnt understand the lack of penalty.

[The Bloop]

Re: OH Angie Baby

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/14/...ner-a-penalty/

Have a read of this. Its not just me that doesnt understand the lack of penalty.

And this one which Id seen the other day.

Angela Rayner pays £40k underpaid tax but no penalty | Business & Accountancy Daily https://share.google/BEvEMgvCVQa2i4wPR

[Eric Cartman]

Re: OH Angie Baby

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/14/...ner-a-penalty/

Have a read of this. Its not just me that doesnt understand the lack of penalty.

Putting aside whether a penalty would ordinarily be due, there are some strange mental gymnastics in that post. He's essentially saying 'we can't decide who is right because we can't take one sides argument without evidence and the other side HMRC aren't able to release anything'. HMRC and Raynor are on the same side when it comes to the decision, HMRC made the decision and obvious Raynor agrees with it. TPA/Dan Neidle aren't an arbiter in all of this, they have made themselves 'the other side' by questioning the decision and they don't have any evidence (other than 'this is what usually happens'), so whether it's a corrupt decision or not, he needs to just let it lie. There's no moral or legal duty for people to open up their affairs to TPA for them to decide the true outcome and if she wants it to go away, she would be mad to do so regardless of whether it's a stitch up or not.

More recently Dan seems to have taken some of the numbskull criticism of his attachment to the labour party to heart and he is digging hard on this one to prove his independent credentials.

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

Putting aside whether a penalty would ordinarily be due, there are some strange mental gymnastics in that post. He's essentially saying 'we can't decide who is right because we can't take one sides argument without evidence and the other side HMRC aren't able to release anything'. HMRC and Raynor are on the same side when it comes to the decision, HMRC made the decision and obvious Raynor agrees with it. TPA/Dan Neidle aren't an arbiter in all of this, they have made themselves 'the other side' by questioning the decision and they don't have any evidence (other than 'this is what usually happens'), so whether it's a corrupt decision or not, he needs to just let it lie. There's no moral or legal duty for people to open up their affairs to TPA for them to decide the true outcome and if she wants it to go away, she would be mad to do so regardless of whether it's a stitch up or not.

More recently Dan seems to have taken some of the numbskull criticism of his attachment to the labour party to heart and he is digging hard on this one to prove his independent credentials.

That's not what they are saying. In the normal course of business if a taxpayer has submitted a return and paid tax, but the return and therefore tax due is wrong, the starting position is almost always "Careless". Even when careless the penalty can be 0%. Its very rare that HMRC would say the taxpayer has taken all reasonable care, especially under circumstances where the taxpayer was advised to take specific tax advice and chose not to.

HMRC have not made any statement, so we don't know their position. It could be they deduced Raynor took reasonable care, or they could have deduced Raynor was careless but the penalty applied was 0%, or that the penalty was anywhere from 0-30% but suspended. Now given Raynor isn't too au fait with the tax system, it may be that a penalty of 0% has been applied and she has interpreted that as being no penalty.

If Raynor wanted to put this to bed, she could release the evidence that states she acted reasonably. The fact she does not indicates to me there is a bit more than meets the eye and I suspect a penalty was applied, either 0% or suspended.

[delmbox]

Re: OH Angie Baby

Any chance you can go and buy some more new Vinyl?

maybe we could have a whipround

[Eric Cartman]

Re: OH Angie Baby

That's not what they are saying. In the normal course of business if a taxpayer has submitted a return and paid tax, but the return and therefore tax due is wrong, the starting position is almost always "Careless". Even when careless the penalty can be 0%. Its very rare that HMRC would say the taxpayer has taken all reasonable care, especially under circumstances where the taxpayer was advised to take specific tax advice and chose not to.

HMRC have not made any statement, so we don't know their position. It could be they deduced Raynor took reasonable care, or they could have deduced Raynor was careless but the penalty applied was 0%, or that the penalty was anywhere from 0-30% but suspended. Now given Raynor isn't too au fait with the tax system, it may be that a penalty of 0% has been applied and she has interpreted that as being no penalty.

If Raynor wanted to put this to bed, she could release the evidence that states she acted reasonably. The fact she does not indicates to me there is a bit more than meets the eye and I suspect a penalty was applied, either 0% or suspended.

I'm not sure this is Raynor's problem anymore, its now become about whether HMRC have done something they wouldn't ordinarily do because they were dealing with a prominent person (I'm assuming that's the charge being levelled here), so isn't HMRC the avenue to follow? Its not up to Raynor to tell you what decision was taken or why HMRC made a specific decision. I know you will say 'they won't release information/make statements' etc but that doesn't automatically create some imperative for Raynor to do so. I don't think it does anyway.

Let's say this was a prominent business person with significant economic sway. I claim I need to know something about their affairs, go to HMRC and then when HMRC say 'no ****ing way, piss off', does that person now have some kind of obligation to provide me with whatever I think I need to know?

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

maybe we could have a whipround

go for it, I'm not one to ever turn down vinyl. I've just bought Chalk's Crystalpunk and its worth a listen to

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

I'm not sure this is Raynor's problem anymore, its now become about whether HMRC have done something they wouldn't ordinarily do because they were dealing with a prominent person (I'm assuming that's the charge being levelled here), so isn't HMRC the avenue to follow? Its not up to Raynor to tell you what decision was taken or why HMRC made a specific decision. I know you will say 'they won't release information/make statements' etc but that doesn't automatically create some imperative for Raynor to do so. I don't think it does anyway.

Let's say this was a prominent business person with significant economic sway. I claim I need to know something about their affairs, go to HMRC and then when HMRC say 'no ****ing way, piss off', does that person now have some kind of obligation to provide me with whatever I think I need to know?

Raynor has made a claim that HMRC did not issue a penalty. Almost everyone in the profession, whether accountants, tax advisors, HMRC staff...all say the same thing. It doesn't add up. Since HMRC never comment on private enquiries (as this would trigger a criminal offence), Raynor can say whatever she wants without consequence. If I was Raynor and wanted to reignite the public trust that I always acted reasonably, then I'd be taking public adverts on the front of every paper in the land showing the evidence. She has not and that tells its own story.

We hold our public servants to a higher standard, and rightly so. Raynor not disclosing the facts here is the same as the cheeto-in-chief not disclosing his tax returns...Her supporters are blinded by their unquestionable loyalty, but the general public aren't so accepting.

Believe what you want, but in my opinion Raynor would have received a penalty, either 0% or suspended. I doubt very much Raynor was found to have acted reasonably given she ignored the advice to seek specialist advice.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: OH Angie Baby

Raynor has made a claim that HMRC did not issue a penalty. Almost everyone in the profession, whether accountants, tax advisors, HMRC staff...all say the same thing. It doesn't add up. Since HMRC never comment on private enquiries (as this would trigger a criminal offence), Raynor can say whatever she wants without consequence. If I was Raynor and wanted to reignite the public trust that I always acted reasonably, then I'd be taking public adverts on the front of every paper in the land showing the evidence. She has not and that tells its own story.

We hold our public servants to a higher standard, and rightly so. Raynor not disclosing the facts here is the same as the cheeto-in-chief not disclosing his tax returns...Her supporters are blinded by their unquestionable loyalty, but the general public aren't so accepting.

Believe what you want, but in my opinion Raynor would have received a penalty, either 0% or suspended. I doubt very much Raynor was found to have acted reasonably given she ignored the advice to seek specialist advice.

Okay so if I don't believe something someone says, they are compelled to provide me with evidence to the contrary or we can all assume they are lying? I can't think of anything that works like that.

[Feedback]

Re: OH Angie Baby

Okay so if I don't believe something someone says, they are compelled to provide me with evidence to the contrary or we can all assume they are lying? I can't think of anything that works like that.

I've not said anything like that however if you want to take that stance, whilst its your prerogative, I think its quite militant.

Where our politicians are concerned, I would however expect them to be a little more open with their affairs, considering they have made errors and seek to persuade the rest of us plebs that they are indeed honourable people looking to put things right.