Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[Pan Pan Pan]

abzmike said:

Wombat3 said:

Amateurish said:

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

That is correct and in isolation appears even plausible.

What may muddy the waters for her is the electoral roll, and then the concept of spending 5 years living apart from the husband she just married and had a child with. It then leads to inevitable questions about how she managed to afford & pay for said renovations (in her self-proclaimed impoverished state) & then what the CGT position was then on her husband's house if its accepted that she lived where she said she did (because they can't both be right).

Then there is the possible undeclared rental income from the brother seen frequenting the house for some considerable time (whilst claiming to live elsewhere) ....and so it goes around.

She really should have Mea Culpa'd this 2 months ago because lets be honest , even if she is cleared by GMP (likely to be from a lack of evidence) etc, there is always going to be a section of the media and the electorate who will look at it & go, "Yeah, riiiiiiight. " (see "Beergate").

As far as the taxman is concerned, IIRC the burden of proof is always on the taxpayer to prove that tax is not owed. They can slap a demand on you & its then on you to prove its not correct - so pleading that she no longer has the receipts or bank statements won't get her off the hook if they decide that they should do that. The added sting in the tail is that even if you take them to court to fight it & win, you can't win costs against HMRC (or at least you never used to be able to).

Politicians...can't live with them, can't shoot them!

There will always be a section of the media that will 'Grrr... Raynor' whatever the outcome, even if she is entirely exonerated. She is the new Corbyn.

They also say things like Grrr Sunak, Grrr Braverman etc. It does not really mean anything at all.

[Al Gorithum]

Pan Pan Pan said:

They also say things like Grrr Sunak, Grrr Braverman etc. It does not really mean anything at all.

But with valid reasons for doing so.

[Mr Penguin]

There are lots of reasons to think that Braverman wasn't fit to be Home Secretary but simply saying "the other side are just as bad" isn't a good or convincing defence.

[bennno]

Amateurish said:

Wombat3 said:

Not confused at all........renovations are only relevant if she didn't live there. So why even mention it if she did?

This is a really simple concept, I'm surprised you can't understand it

She says 1. I lived in the house so no CGT is due 2. even if I didn't live there, no CGT would be due because I have done renovations.

The two propositions are not contradictory.

'I lived in the house' is deliberately vague, whilst 'even if I didn't' simply confuses the statement further.

If this was Boris then by default it'd be considered clear obfuscation.

It's no different.

[blueg33]

Wombat3 said:

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

No you nominate one and you can change your nomination as often as you like

CGT is then calculated on the percentage of the gain relating to the percentage of the time you owned the place that you didn't live there (with a 9 month allowance).

Moving back into a house just before you sell it and calling it your main residence again does not remove the CGT liability if you did not live in it for the whole time you owned it.

Agreed.

I think she has got herself caught up in something that she didnt understand, even tax experts say its a bit grey.

I don't particularly like her but I suspect that she has done something that thousands of others in the same sort of complicated family situation have done. Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

[Rufus Stone]

blueg33 said:

Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

Very difficult when the gutter press smell blood. They just keep regurgitating rumour and insulation until they find another unwilling victim to move on to.

[Mr Penguin]

It's hard to write a story if the answer is straightforward and fits with the known facts.
It's quite easy to keep it going if the answer given doesn't make any sense, doesn't fit with the known facts, isn't internally consistent, and is secretive.

[blueg33]

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

Very difficult when the gutter press smell blood. They just keep regurgitating rumour and insulation until they find another unwilling victim to move on to.

Good point

[bennno]

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

Very difficult when the gutter press smell blood. They just keep regurgitating rumour and insulation until they find another unwilling victim to move on to.

Good point

The original point is the good one, she still hasn't closed it down quickly. She could just share her tax advice if it was as black and white as she claims.

[Digga]

bennno said:

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

Very difficult when the gutter press smell blood. They just keep regurgitating rumour and insulation until they find another unwilling victim to move on to.

Good point

The original point is the good one, she still hasn't closed it down quickly. She could just share her tax advice if it was as black and white as she claims.

TBF and I am not fan of politicians, let alone Labour or Rayner, given the magnitude of the sums involved, this smacks of a witch hunt. Especially when you look at the sort of tax arrangements for much of the cabinet.

When my old man, who's more right wing than I am, thinks this is a hugely overblown issue.

[JNW1]

blueg33 said:

Wombat3 said:

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

No you nominate one and you can change your nomination as often as you like

CGT is then calculated on the percentage of the gain relating to the percentage of the time you owned the place that you didn't live there (with a 9 month allowance).

Moving back into a house just before you sell it and calling it your main residence again does not remove the CGT liability if you did not live in it for the whole time you owned it.

Agreed.

I think she has got herself caught up in something that she didnt understand, even tax experts say its a bit grey.

I don't particularly like her but I suspect that she has done something that thousands of others in the same sort of complicated family situation have done. Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!

But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.

So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!

[turbobloke]

JNW1 said:

blueg33 said:

Wombat3 said:

blueg33 said:

Rufus Stone said:

blueg33 said:

I thought that married couples are considered as living in the same house for CGT purposes? Was she married at the time? I have lost track.

Is there any rule that states it has to be the mans house though?

No you nominate one and you can change your nomination as often as you like

CGT is then calculated on the percentage of the gain relating to the percentage of the time you owned the place that you didn't live there (with a 9 month allowance).

Moving back into a house just before you sell it and calling it your main residence again does not remove the CGT liability if you did not live in it for the whole time you owned it.

Agreed.

I think she has got herself caught up in something that she didnt understand, even tax experts say its a bit grey.

I don't particularly like her but I suspect that she has done something that thousands of others in the same sort of complicated family situation have done. Her failing is that she didn't close it down quickly.

CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!

But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.

So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!

Hence, not overblown.

[Rufus Stone]

JNW1 said:

CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!

But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.

So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!

Likely correct, but don't forget that when responding to the CGT issues she was also trying to cover off her electoral roll address issue. To her mind, and perhaps her advisers too, saying she lived at her house resolved both.

[blueg33]

JNW1 said:

CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!

But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.

So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!

Most newly weds isn't all newly weds, I am sure I don't have to remind you what most means. I have worked in housing all my career and one thing its taught me is to never make assumptions about how people live or run their lives, especially when two families are merging and kids are involved. I've even seen people with no gets that both work shifts but shift patterns are offset but overlapping live in different apartments.

You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.

Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.

Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"

[Amateurish]

This all puts my in mind of my local Tory MP, who has been again selected by the local party to stand in the next election:

1. Failed to pay £5m CGT *while Chancellor* and then lied about it
2. Arranged for Greensill to be given £400m in illegal Govt backed loans, then lied about it. Which they will now default on.
3. Claimed MPs expenses for the heating of his stables.

[Baroque attacks]

Tbf Blue you miss out the input from the neighbours there.

[blueg33]

Baroque attacks said:

Tbf Blue you miss out the input from the neighbours there.

What did they say? have they got an axe to grind?

[Sway]

blueg33 said:

JNW1 said:

CGT is indeed a potential minefield which is why people who are exposed to it regularly tend to use tax specialists to try to ensure they're not caught out!

But in Rayner's case has she really done something that thousands of others in a similar situation have done? The reason I question that is most newly-weds would (IMO) look to live together as soon as possible, especially if they've got a young family; however, if we are to believe Rayner, she didn't do that and instead opted to continue to live at her own home - and separate from her new husband - for five years after they got married. That strikes me as a very odd thing for a newly married couple to choose to do and indeed the evidence of neighbours suggests she didn't do that at all - in reality she was living with her new husband (as you'd expect) and it was actually her brother living in her house.

So to me she hasn't been caught up in something complicated she didn't understand, she's been caught out as a result of not being honest about something that's very straightforward, namely stating where you live. And that dishonesty was also plain stupid if it was done to try to avoid a CGT liability that was at worst minimal and quite possibly didn't exist at all!

Most newly weds isn't all newly weds, I am sure I don't have to remind you what most means. I have worked in housing all my career and one thing its taught me is to never make assumptions about how people live or run their lives, especially when two families are merging and kids are involved. I've even seen people with no gets that both work shifts but shift patterns are offset but overlapping live in different apartments.

You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.

Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.

Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"

Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.

[Rufus Stone]

blueg33 said:

Most newly weds isn't all newly weds, I am sure I don't have to remind you what most means. I have worked in housing all my career and one thing its taught me is to never make assumptions about how people live or run their lives, especially when two families are merging and kids are involved. I've even seen people with no gets that both work shifts but shift patterns are offset but overlapping live in different apartments.

You are saying she has been dishonest whilst making sweeping assumptions about how she and her family live. You are not being objective, you are colouring your judgement based solely on potentially flawed assumptions.

Like I say, I am no Rayner fan, but I am a fan of taking an objective view.

Your view sounds like the post office view "the sub postmasters must have their hands in the till, because the alternative doesn't appeal to me"

It's not really wrong to make an assumption that 99.9% of newly married couples live in the same home though.

Rayner does have a disabled son though, and her home had apparently been adapted for him, so her claim they lived apart for the first five years of marriage could hold water.

[blueg33]

Sway said:

Understand where you're coming from regarding assumptions with no evidence, however there's quite a lot from her social media, neighbours, etc., which strongly indicates that she's lying and did live at husband's house.

Hence the need for an investigation I guess. It all gets really messy around definitions eg "live". If she didnt "live" there is she not allowed to spend time there? Would you say I lived at Hotel Gotham in Manchester because I was there 4 nights a week rather than my home where I spent 3 nights a week for 6 years or so? If I stay in one house I own for 6 weeks and another for 6 weeks, which one do I live in? The neighbours for each house would say I live there.