Is Angela Raynor a liar or is it all anti Labour media bias?

[CormorantStrikesBack]

I’m well aware how anti Labour a lot of the main stream media seem to be so I wasn’t paying much attention previously to all the stuff about how she should have paid capital gains tax on her house, etc. she was adamant that she didn’t need to.

So it seems like she said it was her main residence so not liable for capital gains tax. But her husband and kids lived in a house a short distance away apparently for the first five years of their marriage which is unusual. A neighbour who lived next to her “husband’s” house said it was the main family home and Angela definitely lived there.

I’ll be sad if she has lied. Always thought she was on the side of the ordinary person. I guess the police/tax man might have a hard time proving anything though regardless of the neighbour’s statement. If all bills, etc were in the individual names there’s no evidence.

Yes, leaving aside the police, the law and so on - and, again, this is a trivial issue even if there was a technical breach of tax rules, which we ought to give her the benefit of the doubt about (as all others should be given before admission or conviction) - the evasiveness is what’s damaging AR.

I can’t see how she could credibly lead attacks on Tories’ business or tax dealings after this.

well public records show what she paid for it is less than what she sold it for, so unless she spent tens of thousands on it, literally half the property value, there was a profit.

But you don’t know that as a fact.

And I don't think her neighbours are irrelevant. In a trial, their evidence would likely be brought in front of a jury. Maybe not believed as fact verbatim, but considered at least.

I think you are still misunderstanding. Rayner has never claimed her husband lived at Vicarage Road so it doesn’t matter whether she lived there. It wasn’t their main residence.

This would never go to trial. Without evidence that her husband lived at Vicarage Road, HMRC would have enough information to conclude which house was eligible for the relief, and calculate any tax, interest and penalties due, and just write a letter asking for money.

People make unintentional mistakes on tax returns all the time. It isn’t a criminal offence.

Or even more common - don’t fill in a tax return because they didn’t realise tax was due.

If Angela Rayner were to publish her tax advice do we think it would set a precedent or would it be more like a one off to teach her a lesson?

@Merrymouse but the point is that its murky as hell, and she's fast losing the moral high ground to scream "resign" at any Tory she can get her jaws in to.

No it’s not.

It seems pretty clear that she misunderstood tax rules, has possibly underpaid £1,000 to £3,000, and that HMRC have enough information to investigate if they choose.

She would have been better off explaining this at the beginning, but I assume didn’t want to discuss her private life.

Loads of people make tax mistakes, particularly in situations like this where there wasn’t necessarily any trigger to alert them to the fact that tax was due.

I imagine that Lord Ashcroft would have avoided the tax completely by paying for tax planning advice.

It’s an odd bit of legislation because, unusually, it puts unmarried couples at a tax advantage. But that’s tax.

To publish would be a very useful precedent for Labour to embarrass the Tories with. But I can see both why she wouldn’t disclose and I sympathise with her about that - it is a grossly intrusive thing to be asked of her; and that her colleagues wouldn’t thank her for setting the precedent.

Rayner’s problem in not disclosing, however, is her enthusiasm for calling on others to do so.

Misread the rules? That doesn’t look good for her as plenty of other people can understand the rules.

How would she ever understand more complicated political documents!

No. People really, really don’t understand this bit of CGT legislation, hence all the talk about neighbours.

Its relatively unusual to become liable for a tax because of marriage.

I'd be uncomfortable with anyone losing their career, not just their job, on the balance of probabilities.... do you also hold Tory MPs to such high standards?

Not all married couples live together, i personally know of two couples who do not live together.
Why would neighbours know whether she lives FT at any property, did they keep a diary on her?

If she was letting out the house & was a LL in the true sense of the word, then they'll be bank transfers from her brothers account to hers and this should have been declared as taxable income.... or are we now accusing her of not declaring rental income and what evidence?

On the "Home" thing, my DD calls at least 2 houses "home" as did i when i lived away, as do countless people with holiday homes when living in their 2nd "home"

In these cash strapped times, is it fair to use taxpayers money to investigate non crimes, that have zero chance of being prosecuted on the say so of a political opponent?

AR called MPs who wanted kids to go hungry "Scum" .... many people would agree that such people who deliberately starve children are scum.

I accept that marriage is likely to be part of the scenario in some cases like this.

But CGT on property sales is aimed at multiple ownership and asset swelling, not at marriage.

AR called MPs who wanted kids to go hungry "Scum" .... many people would agree that such people who deliberately starve children are scum.

That’s not true. She tried to rationalise after the event when Starmer got angry with her. But that’s not what she said.

I think it’d just a quirk that has the result of benefitting people who have two homes but aren’t married. I don’t think it’s intentional.

Sometimes (benefits), the regulations also target people who live as a couple. In this case the only thing that matters is a marriage certificate.

@Alexandra2001 Balance of probabilities is the threshold in civil cases. And yes, I do hold Tories to the same standard.

Tax evasion isn't a civil offence and neither is electoral fraud, so not relevant here.

But even in a civil case, there has to be evidence.....

I said early on this thread or another one that AR has to step down as an MP if she is guilty plus whatever penalties the law imposes BUT since the story broke, there has been nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations.

I don't believe we should ruin anyone's career based on gossip.

Lets see what GMP find and if HMRC pursue her for tax evasion.

She got cleared in the first investigation and nobody really knows what her latest offence is.

I agree with you about not ruining someone's career on gossip and I hope she is found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The point I was making re: burden of proof was in response to an earlier poster implying AR needs to have a criminal conviction - beyond reasonable doubt, in order for a resignation to be warranted. My opinion is that for her to lose her nailed on cabinet job, it only needs a balance of probabilities for KS to act. Balance of probabilities is not the same thing as gossip.

But hopefully, she is shown to have acted properly, without misrepresenting her living arrangements to manipulate tax liability and we can all move on.

Personally, I'm not interested in the electoral fraud stuff. Motive-wise I don't believe she'd act criminally appear twice on a register, or even vote twice, but I can see a motive to save a few grand in CGT.

I'm not sure she was cleared, the police declined to investigate. I'm not sure they are the same thing. The police have been approached with new evidence as part of a new complaint, and are now investigating, as is their duty.

The Manchester Evening News understands that GMP has now carried out an investigation into the formal complaint and found no evidence of any offences.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/labour-mp-angela-rayner-cleared-28798066

Well, actually its not, there is a clear time limit on this offence of electoral fraud and the EC clearly state that when complaints are made by opposing political parties, that there is sufficient evidence presented (all within the 12month limit)

Would GMP do similar if someone came forward and said X was speeding 10 years ago and i want this investigated? of course they wouldn't.

Atm HMRC aren't investigating AR either.

So for now, its gossip.

HMRC will not pursue her for tax evasion. They will just ask her for money if relevant.

She hasn’t presented her living arrangements in a way that would enable her to avoid tax.

I also suspect that if any tax was owed, it has now been paid.

Ok, ok. You know best. There is no investigation. Yvette Cooper defends Angela Rayner as house row rumbles on - BBC News Except, well there is.

"Suspect" based on what???

As i understand it, if she failed to pay CGT, its not just a matter of "oops sorry, here you go"

She'll have penalties and interest to pay and that would now be in the public domain, they'd also dig deeply into her affairs, not least the accusation made on here she was a landlord, charging rent and presumably not declaring that either.... or she wouldn't have avoided CGT in the first place.

Well, yes i do, at least better than you!
She has been cleared by GMP which you said just a few posts ago would be good enough for you...but now isn't.... the aide issue was dealt with several pages ago...

Its like a witches ducking stool....

I hope this Daly character is now investigated for wasting Police time.