Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Deesee said:
Ah, 130k the ex husband made, by then being married and clearly not living together..
The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
They are only allowed one main residence for tax purposes. She is adamant that it was her house. The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
Lets see how long it takes her ex to join the dots and publicly contradict that because he might have quite a lot cash riding on this now.
Wombat3 said:
Deesee said:
Ah, 130k the ex husband made, by then being married and clearly not living together..
The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
They are only allowed one main residence for tax purposes. She is adamant that it was her house. The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
Lets see how long it takes her ex to join the dots and publicly contradict that because he might have quite a lot cash riding on this now.
Vanden Saab said:
Wombat3 said:
Deesee said:
Ah, 130k the ex husband made, by then being married and clearly not living together..
The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
They are only allowed one main residence for tax purposes. She is adamant that it was her house. The DWP deep dive will be interesting.
Lets see how long it takes her ex to join the dots and publicly contradict that because he might have quite a lot cash riding on this now.
Al Gorithum said:
Deesee said:
Daily Telegraph.
Ah that famous arbiter of fairness, truth and impartiality. Not.It's a fair position. A married couple can only have one primary residence between them. She's stated very clearly that was her house, so no CGT payable.
That does mean that the sale of his house must therefore have not been the primary residence, therefore very likely CGT due.
Vanden Saab said:
That is a full size double-decker she has thrown him under.
Except he may be driving said bushttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-lo...
Dan Neidle said:
A married couple who own more than one home are free to choose which is their “principal residence” for capital gains tax purposes by sending a nomination to HMRC within two years of the situation arising. If they don’t, relief applies by reference to which home was their joint main residence as a matter of fact.
Given Rayner’s apparent misunderstanding of the law, it would be surprising if she and her husband had made a nomination to HMRC. On the facts available, it seems reasonably clear their joint main residence would have been her husband’s house: he seems to have lived only there, their children lived mostly there, and she lived there at least some of the time.
There’s been much speculation about where (Angela) Rayner’s home was during the period of her marriage. But this isn’t terribly relevant – the question is where their joint main residence was, and there’s little doubt that was her husband’s house.
Given Rayner’s apparent misunderstanding of the law, it would be surprising if she and her husband had made a nomination to HMRC. On the facts available, it seems reasonably clear their joint main residence would have been her husband’s house: he seems to have lived only there, their children lived mostly there, and she lived there at least some of the time.
There’s been much speculation about where (Angela) Rayner’s home was during the period of her marriage. But this isn’t terribly relevant – the question is where their joint main residence was, and there’s little doubt that was her husband’s house.
Mr Penguin said:
Except he may be driving said bus
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-lo...
Odd why Ange would say she didn’t live there.https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-lo...
Dan Neidle the Labour Activist said:
it seems reasonably clear their joint main residence would have been her husband’s house:
NomduJour said:
Odd why Ange would say she didn’t live there.
One of them owes tax - the question is which one. If they actually were living at his house (which all the evidence points to) then it wouldn't be due on his unless they nominated hers, which probably wasn't done or she would have said that straight away and have a better understanding of the rules. So I think she probably did owe the tax and I also suspect that there is more to the story than has been published in the press so far.I don't get the impression that Dan Neidle is trying to slant things towards Labour, even if he is a member.
Biggy Stardust said:
Tankrizzo said:
The absolutely barmy thing about that Telegraph article is that they've assigned at least a dozen officers to the Rayner case.
You mean they're assigning a lot of resources to their investigation? Excellent. I look forward to seeing what facts they uncover.Al Gorithum said:
Vanden Saab said:
Al Gorithum said:
Deesee said:
Daily Telegraph.
Ah that famous arbiter of fairness, truth and impartiality. Not.They all have agendas and favoured narratives which slant the reporting and editorial stance.
One has to understand that, read multiple sources with that in mind. Hint also if you don't read sources with which you disagree then you are fundamentally doing it incorrectly. Multiple sources including not just UK based is the best way.
Cue accusations of "whataboutism" " oh look a squirrel" and all the other wibble that certain travellers like to throw around.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff