Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Al Gorithum said:
She's offered to resign if found guilty of wrong doing. What more do you want? When was the last time you heard a Tory doing that?
She called for resignations and suggested he should do the honourable thing and resign prior to any investigative outcome, as it undermines confidence in politicians and calling for transparency and honesty. We will see in time if she did break election law and delberately lie to avoid paying Capital Gains tax.Ergo she deserves everything she's getting at the moment, she could easily share her tax advice given....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY4lU21I8L0
Evanivitch said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
It is *essential* the police investigate this carefully and studiously.
Obviously in the public interest given it's outside the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes.President Merkin said:
popeyewhite said:
President Merkin said:
popeyewhite said:
The Karma Police have caught up with her.
Luckily for Ange, they're a figment of your imagination.bennno said:
Al Gorithum said:
She's offered to resign if found guilty of wrong doing. What more do you want? When was the last time you heard a Tory doing that?
She called for resignations and suggested he should do the honourable thing and resign prior to any investigative outcome, as it undermines confidence in politicians and calling for transparency and honesty. We will see in time if she did break election law and delberately lie to avoid paying Capital Gains tax.Ergo she deserves everything she's getting at the moment, she could easily share her tax advice given....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY4lU21I8L0
If she's found to be in the wrong she's said she'll resign. Seems like refreshing integrity to me.
popeyewhite said:
I accept your apology.
Oh, you do have an imagination after all. Cool.Anyway, turning to the grown ups, why do we think James Daly, soon to be a forever ex. Tory MP flatly refuses to tell anyone exactly what he thinks Ange has done? After all he went telling tales to Dibble in the first place, so surely he knows?
AstonZagato said:
Evanivitch said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
It is *essential* the police investigate this carefully and studiously.
Obviously in the public interest given it's outside the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes.AR isn't in the ruling government and she sold her house before becoming an MP.
How anyone can consider the two things equivalent is beyond me.
Al Gorithum said:
The difference being that Boris and everyone else involved knew he was lying.
If she's found to be in the wrong she's said she'll resign. Seems like refreshing integrity to me.
I still don't fully understand the difference between a slice of cake in an office with those you work with compared to enjoying a group curry and a beer following meetings at the other end of the country during Covid.If she's found to be in the wrong she's said she'll resign. Seems like refreshing integrity to me.
We will see, she cant really not resign given her outbursts in that circumstance. Something tells me she'll blame bad advice / naivety of rules / complexity of uk tax regimes.
EddieSteadyGo said:
JNW1 said:
It does happen all the time but when a couple marries - and each already has their own home - I think under HMRC rules they have to nominate which property is to be treated as their main residence within two years of getting married if they are going to retain and use both homes? The Rayners obviously kept both their pre-marital homes for longer than that after getting married so one or other should have been nominated as their primary residence - as a married couple you're not allowed to retain two primary residences indefinitely.
However, a lot of the time a couple getting married will probably sell one or other (or perhaps both) of the existing properties within two years and in that scenario I don't think any CGT is payable. If one is retained I imagine it's often rented out and then income tax rules apply (as will CGT if and when it's eventually sold).
The daft thing in Rayner's case is that, even assuming her house wasn't the one nominated as the main residence post-marriage, I suspect any CGT liability would have been minimal. Therefore, in terms of numbers the whole thing probably doesn't add up to a row of beans (unless there's something in the right to buy rules that complicates things?).
Yes, that does make sense. I'm not an expert in residential CGT (probably that is obvious!) so I don't know the rules fully, but is that point about two years after marriage on the HRMC website? I can see why there must be some kind of timeframe, because, as you say, it wouldn't be realistic to expect to keep two primary residences indefinitely.However, a lot of the time a couple getting married will probably sell one or other (or perhaps both) of the existing properties within two years and in that scenario I don't think any CGT is payable. If one is retained I imagine it's often rented out and then income tax rules apply (as will CGT if and when it's eventually sold).
The daft thing in Rayner's case is that, even assuming her house wasn't the one nominated as the main residence post-marriage, I suspect any CGT liability would have been minimal. Therefore, in terms of numbers the whole thing probably doesn't add up to a row of beans (unless there's something in the right to buy rules that complicates things?).
https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/customerforums/cgt/5...
I'm not an expert in CGT either and, as I've said before, I think Angela Rayner can be excused for not being an expert in the subject as well. What I find less easy to excuse is she apparently didn't know where she was living for several years...!
AstonZagato said:
Evanivitch said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
It is *essential* the police investigate this carefully and studiously.
Obviously in the public interest given it's outside the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes.
Oh so the police ignored the law b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Don't worry Benno luckily the Police do.
That's why Johnson got fined and Starmer was found to have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Or, one Police force was clear that it would prosecute the offence whilst the other had already made it clear that it wouldn't (Hence SKS hollow offer to resign if he was prosecuted, when he already knew that he wouldn't be, even if the offence was proven)That's why Johnson got fined and Starmer was found to have done absolutely nothing wrong.
JNW1 said:
This is what I found in response to a question on the HMRC website:
https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/customerforums/cgt/5...
...
Thanks. You were right. Seems like the threshold is two years. After that, you have to rely on HMRC's view of the 'circumstances' which means it gets a bit subjective.https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/customerforums/cgt/5...
...
andymadmak said:
Or, one Police force was clear that it would prosecute the offence whilst the other had already made it clear that it wouldn't (Hence SKS hollow offer to resign if he was prosecuted, when he already knew that he wouldn't be, even if the offence was proven)
No Andy, one Police force was clear that there was nothing to prosecute.“A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained, which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential full code test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work.
Doesn't change the facts though.
Johnson was fined because he committed an offence.
Stamer wasn't.
It was all discussed at the time and the Sue Gray report made clear the extent of Johnson's disgrace.
None of that will change however much you and a few others might want to try to equate the two situations.
Johnson was fined because he committed an offence.
Stamer wasn't.
It was all discussed at the time and the Sue Gray report made clear the extent of Johnson's disgrace.
None of that will change however much you and a few others might want to try to equate the two situations.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:andymadmak said:
Or, one Police force was clear that it would prosecute the offence whilst the other had already made it clear that it wouldn't (Hence SKS hollow offer to resign if he was prosecuted, when he already knew that he wouldn't be, even if the offence was proven)
No Andy, one Police force was clear that there was nothing to prosecute.“A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained, which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential full code test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff