New Labour Leader

[A Load of Squit 5,190]

More evidence of what a non-story it is.

The ** who reported Rayner doesn't know what she did wrong.

 

[Herman 9,798]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

More evidence of what a non-story it is.

The ** who reported Rayner doesn't know what she did wrong.

 

Heeeed!!!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

24 minutes ago, Herman said:

Heeeed!!!

Perfectly right and proper to let the investigation run its course. Who wants trial by media when something's under formal investigation?

Edited April 15 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 829]

On 14/04/2024 at 08:53, TheGunnShow said:

If non-doms are evading tax then aren't they basically leeches anyway?

Isn't the rule that non dom status relates only to foreign income?  Money made in the UK still gets taxed at the standard rate.

I dont really care about the politics of this.  If abolition raises the overall take then great,  if it doesn't then its a blunder. I suspect that it's 50/50 which will prove true

 

 

[Barbe bleu 829]

5 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

More evidence of what a non-story it is.

The ** who reported Rayner doesn't know what she did wrong.

I'm very intrigued as to what the police are investigating.  

The making a false claim thing seems unlikely as the time bar seems impossible but the GMP have reverse ferreted on an earlier decision not to investigate which presumably they did for some reason.

The fraud aspect will presumably be on a desk in HMRC so what is under investigation? Is it just police going through the motions because of public pressure or is there a third allegation on the table?

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm very intrigued as to what the police are investigating.  

The making a false claim thing seems unlikely as the time bar seems impossible but the GMP have reverse ferreted on an earlier decision not to investigate which presumably they did for some reason.

The fraud aspect will presumably be on a desk in HMRC so what is under investigation? Is it just police going through the motions because of public pressure or is there a third allegation on the table?

When I decided to sell a second property that I had previously rented out, I was required to pay thousands in CGT. This was despite my accountant exploring every legal avenue to reduce the tax bill. I did get some legal l relief, as I had actually lived in the property for a while.

(I had also previously been subject to tax on the rented income I had received.)

This ruling applies to all second homeowners (which Raynor wasn't) or people who do not actually dwell in the property they sell. It is referred to as requiring 'sole residence.' In Raynor's case it appears that her husband's house was her sole residence. You are not required to pay tax upon selling a property that has been your home.

Therefore if you sell the house for more than you paid for it, you are liable to pay CGT on the profit. I'm not referring to second homes used as a holiday home as I don't know about this, but strongly suspect that the same rules apply.

I cannot therefore understand how Raynor's accountancy/legal advice deemed that she should have nothing to pay. There are no loopholes even though it is quite complicated as it appears she didn't rent the property out. If she had done, it would be more clear-cut, but leaving a property/land empty to gain from increased value may raise a need to pay CGT. I wouldn't know.  

Only those who know little about this matter can claim that it is a non-issue, whatever the sum involved.

Not that many years ago, the then Labour (may be Cons.) govt. issued a one-year amnesty on the problem because capital gains tax avoidance had been a major occurrence. You had one year to pay up for any failings of payment. 

I had had another property that I had sold and had unwittingly not declared the gain, and it was within the 7 years threshold. I needed my accountant to decide my bill, but at least my slate is clean.

My thinking with regard to the Raynor case is that the question of fraud should not even come into it. As I see it, it is solely a matter for I/R to investigate because it might be a case of tax avoidance.

This should not be a case of political ****-for-tat, despite her strong previous views against council house sell-offs, but it is not a non-issue. She has standards to uphold due to her position.

Edited April 16 by BroadstairsR

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

Ive not read much about Rayners case.

Personally, I'm currently considering selling the only house I've ever owned. Because I haven't lived in it for many years, it seems I'm liable for CGT. As I want to use the proceeds to buy another house, this doesn't seem right. But the laws the law. Guess I'll need a lawyer 😧

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

7 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm very intrigued as to what the police are investigating.  

The making a false claim thing seems unlikely as the time bar seems impossible but the GMP have reverse ferreted on an earlier decision not to investigate which presumably they did for some reason.

The fraud aspect will presumably be on a desk in HMRC so what is under investigation? Is it just police going through the motions because of public pressure or is there a third allegation on the table?

There is no evidence that HMRC is carrying out an investigation. All Rayner has to do is claim that the property in question was her main residence for CGT purposes and there is no tax offence. She has offered to publish her Tax Returns if the Tories do the same. 

Bear in mind that HMRC won't comment publicly even if Rayner asks them to. 

I think you're right to be intrigued by the police investigation. Have they really been asked to investigate a 'crime' that is time barred from prosecution? 

Edited April 16 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

17 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Ive not read much about Rayners case.

Personally, I'm currently considering selling the only house I've ever owned. Because I haven't lived in it for many years, it seems I'm liable for CGT. As I want to use the proceeds to buy another house, this doesn't seem right. But the laws the law. Guess I'll need a lawyer 😧

No you don't need a lawyer. You need a qualified tax accountant. Send me a pm if you want an independent recommendation. 

Edited April 16 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

When I decided to sell a second property that I had previously rented out, I was required to pay thousands in CGT. This was despite my accountant exploring every legal avenue to reduce the tax bill. I did get some legal l relief, as I had actually lived in the property for a while.

(I had also previously been subject to tax on the rented income I had received.)

This ruling applies to all second homeowners (which Raynor wasn't) or people who do not actually dwell in the property they sell. It is referred to as requiring 'sole residence.' In Raynor's case it appears that her husband's house was her sole residence. You are not required to pay tax upon selling a property that has been your home.

Therefore if you sell the house for more than you paid for it, you are liable to pay CGT on the profit. I'm not referring to second homes used as a holiday home as I don't know about this, but strongly suspect that the same rules apply.

I cannot therefore understand how Raynor's accountancy/legal advice deemed that she should have nothing to pay. There are no loopholes even though it is quite complicated as it appears she didn't rent the property out. If she had done, it would be more clear-cut, but leaving a property/land empty to gain from increased value may raise a need to pay CGT. I wouldn't know.  

Only those who know little about this matter can claim that it is a non-issue, whatever the sum involved.

Not that many years ago, the then Labour (may be Cons.) govt. issued a one-year amnesty on the problem because capital gains tax avoidance had been a major occurrence. You had one year to pay up for any failings of payment. 

I had had another property that I had sold and had unwittingly not declared the gain, and it was within the 7 years threshold. I needed my accountant to decide my bill, but at least my slate is clean.

My thinking with regard to the Raynor case is that the question of fraud should not even come into it. As I see it, it is solely a matter for I/R to investigate because it might be a case of tax avoidance.

This should not be a case of political ****-for-tat, despite her strong previous views against council house sell-offs, but it is not a non-issue. She has standards to uphold due to her position.

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. 

Rayner owned two properties. The CGT legislation requires anyone with 2 or more properties to make an election as to which is their private residence for CGT purposes. The main rule is that the property has to have been used as the main residence at some point. 

So if Rayner elected to have the council house as her private residence then the other house she owned or joint owned would be liable for CGT for the period concerned. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Isn't the rule that non dom status relates only to foreign income?  Money made in the UK still gets taxed at the standard rate.

I dont really care about the politics of this.  If abolition raises the overall take then great,  if it doesn't then its a blunder. I suspect that it's 50/50 which will prove true

 

 

Non doms pay UK tax on income earned in the UK. They don't pay tax on income earned elsewhere but they do pay UK tax on that income if it is remitted to the UK. (That's very easy to avoid/evade with the simple use of a debit/credit card attached to an offshore account). Non doms do not pay tax on capital (as opposed to income) remitted to the UK. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

There is no evidence that HMRC is carrying out an investigation....Bear in mind that HMRC won't comment publicly even if Rayner asks them to. 

I think you're right to be intrigued by the police investigation. Have they really been asked to investigate a 'crime' that is time barred from prosecution? 

I've truncated your first two paragraphs to highlight and then shelve one issue for now- we don't know what HMRC are doing so not much point speculating.

Yes, my intrigue is about the police investigation.  They have already declined to investigate once.  So what will they now be looking at? Seems to me to be only three options: (1) there is no new investigation, there is only perfomative action designed to a alleviate pressure  (2) they are investigating a whole new offence, not the time barred one (3) they are investigating a more recent incident of the same offence.

 

Edited April 16 by Barbe bleu

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. 

Rayner owned two properties. The CGT legislation requires anyone with 2 or more properties to make an election as to which is their private residence for CGT purposes. The main rule is that the property has to have been used as the main residence at some point. 

So if Rayner elected to have the council house as her private residence then the other house she owned or joint owned would be liable for CGT for the period concerned. 

If you say so.

As I understand it, she owned just one property. The council house she bought.

She moved into the property her husband owned. Whether her husband alone remained on the deeds of the property that became her sole residence, or whether he later put her name on those deeds is not known.

Either way, the council house she owned did not become her 'private residence' because apparently she did not reside there.

Edited April 16 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've truncated your first two paragraphs to highlight and then shelve one issue for now- we don't know what HMRC are doing so not much point speculating.

Yes, my intrigue is about the police investigation.  They have already declined to investigate once.  So what will they now be looking at? Seems to me to be only three options: (1) there is no new investigation, there is only perfomative action designed to a alleviate pressure  (2) they are investigating a whole new offence, not the time barred one (3) they are investigating a more recent incident of the same offence.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/what-is-angela-rayner-accused-of-why-deputy-labour-leader-is-being-investigated-and-what-shes-said-13115839

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

18 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've truncated your first two paragraphs to highlight and then shelve one issue for now- we don't know what HMRC are doing so not much point speculating.

Yes, my intrigue is about the police investigation.  They have already declined to investigate once.  So what will they now be looking at? Seems to me to be only three options: (1) there is no new investigation, there is only perfomative action designed to a alleviate pressure  (2) they are investigating a whole new offence, not the time barred one (3) they are investigating a more recent incident of the same offence.

 

The police may be in a bit of bother themselves. Rayner is Britain's most threatened MP.  Her children need a police guard to and from school. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they've encouraged her not to publicly use the correct address. 

The treatment that MPs from all sides have had to put up with lately leads me to think their home addresses should be out of the public domain. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

8 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

If you say so.

What I say doesn't really matter. The HMRC guidance is available online 

https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home/nominating-a-home

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

20 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The police may be in a bit of bother themselves. Rayner is Britain's most threatened MP.  Her children need a police guard to and from school. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they've encouraged her not to publicly use the correct address. 

The treatment that MPs from all sides have had to put up with lately leads me to think their home addresses should be out of the public domain. 

The alleged offences date back to between 2010 and 2015. It's not just the tax question apparently, but also the electoral declaration.

FWIW, I don't like this weaponisation of fairly trivial offences for political purposes, but the door was opened to it when Tommy Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was put in prison for a false mortgage declaration without much public objection, and even positive approval in many cases.

Edited April 16 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

13 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The police may be in a bit of bother themselves. Rayner is Britain's most threatened MP.  Her children need a police guard to and from school. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they've encouraged her not to publicly use the correct address. 

The treatment that MPs from all sides have had to put up with lately leads me to think their home addresses should be out of the public domain. 

This whole thing stinks of 'BeerGate'. Given the back story of the two addresses and the trivial sums of money involved even if in technical error  (and it's been looked at once and passed already) I'd really be tempted to label this all as 'a waste of police time' or even vexatious.

Let the investigation run it's course - she has stated she will stand down if in error (same SKS with Beergate offered - perhaps Sunak could do the same with his partygate fine) and then if proved correct take the high ground. All tax affairs of all MP's and Newspaper owners /editors to be fully published. Too hot in the kitchen then get out!

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

19 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

What I say doesn't really matter. The HMRC guidance is available online 

https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home/nominating-a-home

Perhaps I was wrong about it being solely an I/R issue, but the fact that the tax office is now reviewing the matter will finally resolve the issue.

The electoral role matter mentioned above seems more serious:

"The claims she lived mainly at her ex-husband's house matter because she was registered to vote at the Vicarage Road address.

Under electoral rules, voters must register at their permanent home address, and there are penalties for providing false information when registering to vote."

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

14 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This whole thing stinks of 'BeerGate'. Given the back story of the two addresses and the trivial sums of money involved even if in technical error  (and it's been looked at once and passed already) I'd really be tempted to label this all as 'a waste of police time' or even vexatious.

Let the investigation run it's course - she has stated she will stand down if in error (same SKS with Beergate offered - perhaps Sunak could do the same with his partygate fine) and then if proved correct take the high ground. All tax affairs of all MP's and Newspaper owners /editors to be fully published. Too hot in the kitchen then get out!

Like the pursual of Tommy Robinson over a false mortgage declaration that resulted in him going to prison, blatantly for political purposes, that few people here objected to and quite a few actively delighted in?

The people who refused to accept how disproportionate that was, and the political motives, opened the door to this sort of thing.

We also had a PM forced to stand down over apparently fibbing over a birthday cake. It's too late to complain about the weaponisation of trivial legal allegations against politicians. In future, politicians will have to make sure they're squeaky clean. The argument made was that he, as a law-maker had flouted the law, so no matter how trivial, he must go. That argument also applies here.

It's interesting that Sky's report led with the alleged false electoral declaration. That's probably the more important thing in the case of an elected politician. And it appears there is documentary evidence it appears involving what the address was at the time of the births of her children.

It's an awful road our political culture has gone down with this weaponisation of quite small legal transgressions, but I don't see a way of resetting it once the Pandora's box has been opened.

Edited April 16 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

13 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Perhaps I was wrong about it being solely an I/R issue, but the fact that the tax office is now reviewing the matter will finally resolve the issue.

The electoral role matter mentioned above seems more serious:

"The claims she lived mainly at her ex-husband's house matter because she was registered to vote at the Vicarage Road address.

Under electoral rules, voters must register at their permanent home address, and there are penalties for providing false information when registering to vote."

What makes you think that HMRC is making enquiries? No such statement has been made by Rayner and HMRC does not discuss taxpayers affairs, even if asked to do so. Rayner has offered to publish her Returns /advice if Conservative MPs do the same. They won't. 

I haven't got a clue what the alleged electoral roll offence is about I'm afraid. We'll have to wait and see. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

We also had a PM forced to stand down over apparently fibbing over a birthday cake. 

His own party forced Johnson to stand down after he blatantly lied to Parliament about the Chris Pincher affair. It had nothing to do with cake. The Pincher matter was not investigated by the police. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

21 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

His own party forced Johnson to stand down after he blatantly lied to Parliament about the Chris Pincher affair. It had nothing to do with cake. The Pincher matter was not investigated by the police. 

What the straw was that broke the camel's back is irrelevant; the press and the opposition went there and bought the police into it to discredit the PM for political purposes using a relatively trivial legal matter to paint a picture of the PM as being unfit. What's happening to Rayner is just a continuation of that in the other direction. She's an elected MP where it does look like she may have broke electoral law, i.e. knowingly gave a false declaration as to her principal residence a long time before she might have had any serious security concerns as you suggested.

Edited April 16 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What the straw was that broke the camel's back is irrelevant; the press and the opposition went there and bought the police into it to discredit the PM for political purposes using a relatively trivial legal matter to paint a picture of the PM as being unfit. What's happening to Rayner is just a continuation of that in the other direction.

Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story! 

By the way, lying to Parliament is not a trivial matter. It is extremely serious. 

Edited April 16 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story! 

It's a noticeable pattern with you and others here that you just flat deny stuff that's blatantly true when invonvenient. It's not a good look. Also noticeable that you have nothing to say regarding the parallel to Yaxley-Lennon's imprisonment for 18 months  over a false mortgage declaration, which is also very comparable to what is happening to Rayner as a weaponisation of minor legal transgressions for political purposes, although it was taken a lot further with Yaxley-Lennon.

Edited April 16 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,190]

54 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Perhaps I was wrong about it being solely an I/R issue, but the fact that the tax office is now reviewing the matter will finally resolve the issue.

The electoral role matter mentioned above seems more serious:

"The claims she lived mainly at her ex-husband's house matter because she was registered to vote at the Vicarage Road address.

Under electoral rules, voters must register at their permanent home address, and there are penalties for providing false information when registering to vote."

Was it as serious when John Major did it? The Daily Mail dismissed it as a 'BBC hatchet job'.

A front-page cover from 1991, unearthed by journalist Michael Crick, shows that they took umbrage to BBC Panorama reports on John Major, which showed he had been registered at a house in Lambeth simply so he could win a seat in the constituency.

According to Crick, the owner told him he’d never lived at the address, but won the seat regardless.

[dylanisabaddog 4,953]

@littleyellowbirdie

Flatly deny stuff that's blatantly true. Wow! 

Johnson's problem was that he lied to Parliament about Covid parties and Pincher. He resigned because his own party forced him to. Those are the extremely major facts that you have ignored (actually you've gone one step further and changed the facts). 

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I haven't commented on the Robinson case because I have no knowledge of it whatsoever. 

Edited April 16 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 829]

10 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Was it as serious when John Major did it? The Daily Mail dismissed it as a 'BBC hatchet job'.

A front-page cover from 1991, unearthed by journalist Michael Crick, shows that they took umbrage to BBC Panorama reports on John Major, which showed he had been registered at a house in Lambeth simply so he could win a seat in the constituency.

According to Crick, the owner told him he’d never lived at the address, but won the seat regardless.

For what it is worth I think the electoral declaration thing is pretty minor. If its demonstrated she did wrong I wouldn't want to see her resign over it. Whether that makes her a hypocrit given her statements about other transgressions is a matter for the electorate.

The tax issue is the bigger one. Knowingly filling out duff info to reduce your burden is a serious allegation which, if proven, is a sacking offence even if it was some time ago.  Wouldn't necessarily bar her from a  comeback on my book but these things shouldn't be just nodded away.

Thing is all we really know is that GMP are looking at something, that's the limit of the conclusions we can draw. If she followed her own advice she would step down but as no one else took her advice  i think she is entitled to stay, for now at least 

Edited April 16 by Barbe bleu

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

What makes you think that HMRC is making enquiries? No such statement has been made by Rayner and HMRC does not discuss taxpayers affairs, even if asked to do so. Rayner has offered to publish her Returns /advice if Conservative MPs do the same. They won't. 

I haven't got a clue what the alleged electoral roll offence is about I'm afraid. We'll have to wait and see. 

I thought I read that they had, perhaps it was the police enquiry which has been re-opened.

In any case, because it was a while ago and beyond the limits of investigation and because it was not a big sum of tax, a review might not be appropriate.

"Once an enquiry has been opened into your tax affairs, the HMRC have 4 years from the end of the tax year concerned to issue a discovery assessment.

If they can show that a loss of tax has been brought about carelessly or deliberately (i.e. dishonestly) by the taxpayer or his agent, then they can issue a “discovery assessment” for the missing tax. 

The rules about discovery assessments are complicated, but basically, the normal four year period is extended to six years where the taxpayer has been dishonest."

The rules are different for big business fraud.

I had thought it seven for individuals and dumped my books after this time-lapse, but rules change, and it is a complicated affair as stated above.

Also:  

"Homeowners have to pay capital gains tax after they have sold a home that has increased in value – but they are exempt if it is their main full-time residence. Substantial improvement costs can also be deducted from a homeowner’s CGT bill.

Married couples who both have individual properties can only have one main residence between them under tax law."

Google.

Yer do yer Googling and yer takes yer pick.

Also:

The fact that it is a small amount pales into insignificance when pensioners are reportedly threatened with prison or other penalties when they fail to pay their television licence.

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

38 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Was it as serious when John Major did it? The Daily Mail dismissed it as a 'BBC hatchet job'.

A front-page cover from 1991, unearthed by journalist Michael Crick, shows that they took umbrage to BBC Panorama reports on John Major, which showed he had been registered at a house in Lambeth simply so he could win a seat in the constituency.

According to Crick, the owner told him he’d never lived at the address, but won the seat regardless.

Major?

How many years ago was that? Not quite as far as the Binner's glorious history goes, I give you that.

I never read the Daily mail in those days, and only now do occasionally because it is free online.

I don't recall ever voting for Major.