Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
Wombat3 said:
Amateurish said:
Wombat3 said:
Rayner apparently now claiming that no CGT is due because she renovated the property.....
That might be an allowable deduction if she didn't actually live in it (and she has the receipts).
Wrong That might be an allowable deduction if she didn't actually live in it (and she has the receipts).
If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Hence the article in The Times yesterday "Her main argument is that the council house was her principal residence and that as a result no capital gains tax was due."
You got confused with this bit:
"she has been advised that even if it was not her principal residence an “enhancement exemption” writing off the capital gains could be applied because of significant renovations."
James6112 said:
119 said:
don'tbesilly said:
It’s well known that Penny Mordaunt is terrified of Angela Rayner after Rayner took Mordaunt to task in the HoC.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bqqqWAI-6QQ&pp=y...
” Rayner a formidable presence at the despatch box”
Blimey.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bqqqWAI-6QQ&pp=y...
” Rayner a formidable presence at the despatch box”
A Daily Wail video from 2 years ago.
Desperation.
Amateurish said:
Wombat3 said:
Amateurish said:
Wombat3 said:
Rayner apparently now claiming that no CGT is due because she renovated the property.....
That might be an allowable deduction if she didn't actually live in it (and she has the receipts).
Wrong That might be an allowable deduction if she didn't actually live in it (and she has the receipts).
If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Hence the article in The Times yesterday "Her main argument is that the council house was her principal residence and that as a result no capital gains tax was due."
You got confused with this bit:
"she has been advised that even if it was not her principal residence an “enhancement exemption” writing off the capital gains could be applied because of significant renovations."
Not a question about Rayner’s predicament itself, however a general question:
“Enhancement exemption” I see mentioned, how do the authorities ascertain how much of the capital gains was due to the renovations?
I mean, you could have a £200k property, sell some time after for £400k but had they not renovated, would be worth £350k for example. So £150k of capital gains happened regardless of renovations.
And how much renovation count’s as exemption? Repaint a wall and say “enhancement exception” for all capital gains, I suspect not….
“Enhancement exemption” I see mentioned, how do the authorities ascertain how much of the capital gains was due to the renovations?
I mean, you could have a £200k property, sell some time after for £400k but had they not renovated, would be worth £350k for example. So £150k of capital gains happened regardless of renovations.
And how much renovation count’s as exemption? Repaint a wall and say “enhancement exception” for all capital gains, I suspect not….
Oakey said:
"No CGT is due because it was my main residence but even if it wasn't my main residence there's still no CGT due because of all the renovations. Also, Mark didn't pay CGT because his property was his main residence"
When you’re up to your neck you really should just stop digging Amateurish said:
You're wrong because she has always said that she lived in the house she sold in 2015. That's why she claims no CGT was due.
She does claim that but how likely is it she'd choose to live apart from the husband she'd only just married and with whom she'd just started a family? On the face of it that would seem a very strange decision for a new wife/mother to make and the anecdotal evidence from neighbours suggests she did no such thing - apparently they never saw her at her home for several years before it was sold but saw plenty of her brother during that time.So he's wrong if you believe Angela but how believable is her version of events?
Wombat3 said:
How so?
If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Not at all. You're trying to claim she falsely stated her primary residence in order to avoid tax. She's made it clear that no tax was due, so what was the motivation?If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Evanivitch said:
Not at all. You're trying to claim she falsely stated her primary residence in order to avoid tax. She's made it clear that no tax was due, so what was the motivation?
If she falsely stated her primary residence then it would be evasion, not avoidance.Her story has gone from completely implausible and secretive to something completely routine - that inconsistency should raise some alarm bells.
Evanivitch said:
Wombat3 said:
How so?
If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Not at all. You're trying to claim she falsely stated her primary residence in order to avoid tax. She's made it clear that no tax was due, so what was the motivation?If she lived there & it was her main residence then its completely irrelevant because CGT is not applicable.
If she didn't live there then she may be able to offset the cost of improvements against CGT. IIRC the amount of CGT payable is determined by the percentage of the time of your ownership that you lived in the property (with a 9 month additional allowance). Not sure whether you can offset 100% of the value of improvements if, for example, you only lived in the place for 50% of the period of ownership. Someone may be able to advise.
In any case, one minute she's telling us she lived there & therefore no CGT is due & the next she's telling us no CGT is due because of improvements (which would only ever be relevant if she didn't live there).
She's now tripping up over her own statements.
Needs to get her story clear.
Then there’s the question of electoral submissions that must align to whatever position is adopted.
bennno said:
His comments are 100% accurate, there is either no cgt as it was her main and only home, or there aren’t as she did material improvements to it to offset the gain whilst letting it out.
Needs to get her story clear.
Then there’s the question of electoral submissions that must align to whatever position is adopted.
Her story is clear, it was her main and only home.Needs to get her story clear.
Then there’s the question of electoral submissions that must align to whatever position is adopted.
It's also clear that there's motivation to falsely declare it, because she didn't avoid any CGT anyway.
98elise said:
chrispmartha said:
98elise said:
captain_cynic said:
98elise said:
captain_cynic said:
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
They really are terrified of her. https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I certainly dislike her politics, and her personally, but why would that be terrifying?
She's terrifying to the Tories and their rusted ons because shes competent and normal people can relate to her. Also she has a nasty habit of pointing out the things that Tories have done wrong.
I'm still not seeing how she is terrifying. She comes across as stupid and devisive, and classes half the electorate as scum. I would class myself as normal and don't relate to her at all.
Her brand of politics and class war was rejected by the country at the last election, and the only reason she has her current position is Starmer can't get rid of her.
She was referring to the Party.
AstonZagato said:
valiant said:
Lots of people saying they won't vote Labour who'd never vote Labour in a million years anyway...
But that's the thing. Labour will win a landslide because the Red Wall will be back without Brexit to drive them elsewhere (nothing to do with Angela) and disaffected Tories staying away. It is the election after that which SKS will need to win - and Angela's brand of divisive politics is not an asset. I know a number of lifelong conservatives who voted for Blair and were proud to proclaim it. They were part of 'Cool Britannia'. I can't see them voting for SKS's and Angela's Labour.
hstewie said:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff