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.

not least the accusation made on here she was a landlord, charging rent and presumably not declaring that either

Who has made that accusation?

@Alexandra2001 they clearly believe that there is sufficient reason to revisit the case.

‘suspect’ based on it being the obvious thing to do, given the small amount of money involved - ask an accountant to review the situation and calculate any tax due.

Tax penalties and interest aren’t in the public domain.

I think you may have misunderstood the tax situation. There is a question over whether she claimed relief because she was married and her husband also owned a property, not because it was rented out.

HMRC are unlikely to be interested in hearsay from neighbours 10 years ago. Also they can only go back 6 years if they suspect carelessness. below is an example of what they regard as careless.

“Brian has made full and accurate returns and self-assessments of his business income for many years. In 2010-11 he inherits a house and lets it to a tenant but fails to declare any rental income for that year. In 2013-14 Brian sells the house but does not disclose the gain on his return. No enquiry was opened in to either year and the investigator discovers both these matters during a subsequent check.
Based on the evidence that he gathers the officer is satisfied that in relation to the rental income Brian had thought that he could offset the income with the costs of his own time that he had spend on repairing and letting the property. Brian was able to demonstrate to the officer that he had briefly consulted HMRC’s guidance and had thought that the property sale would be exempt from Capital Gains Tax. Brian accepts that a reasonable amount of reading would have told him otherwise.
The officer is satisfied that in relation to each inaccuracy Brian’s behaviour was careless. A prudent and reasonable man taking reasonable care would not have omitted these items. The investigator will have until 5t h April 2017 to raise a discovery assessment for 2010-11 and until 5t h April 2020 to raise the 2013-14 discovery assessment.”

@Merrymouse Given AR's profile, surely this would have leaked? as it has many other cases both current and historical.

So if they suspect carelessness, will only go back 6 years and given the 12m time limit on electoral fraud... what is all this about???

Surely a more simple explanation that she simply sold her main residence and hence no CGT is liable?

Why would they be leaked? Thousands (millions?) of people and businesses pay HMRC penalties and interest every year. I think they will be a bit worried if HMRC started leaking this kind of personal information.

It seems possible that a small amount of tax is due because, based on her explanation, she misunderstood the law. Because she was married the question is not which was her main residence, but which was their main residence. Her husband did not live at Vicarage Road, so unless they made a nomination, it was his property. It’s possible a nomination was made, but her ignorance suggests this is unlikely.

It is possible that no tax was due because of improvements, but we don’t know.

I am also baffled about what the police might be able to reveal to the public, given time limits and lack of potential for criminal prosecution.

Rayner (and more so Starmer) would be a bit of an idiot denying any tax wrongdoing but then paying back dated tax/penalties.

That really would be a resigning matter, for both of them.

No one is interested in Joe Bloggs Heating & Plumbing getting a penalty but they would be in AR...... it would come out, especially now.

She says she and her husband didn't live together full time, so if this is true, she sold her main residence, no tax due, regardless of monies spent on the house.

I really don't see why married but not living together is so hard for people to believe.

Rayner (and more so Starmer) would be a bit of an idiot denying any tax wrongdoing but then paying back dated tax/penalties.

making an honest mistake isn’t wrong doing and she hasn’t said when the tax was paid.

She says she and her husband didn't live together full time, so if this is true, she sold her main residence, no tax due, regardless of monies spent on the house.

No - and this is the whole point - that is not true. In the absence of a nomination the house where they lived together some of the time (his house) would be their main residence, not the house where he didn’t live at all.

And even if they did nominate her house as the main residence, that would lead to a possible CGT charge when his house was sold.

However, we know that her original explanation of why CGT wasn’t due was wrong and she has said that she wasn’t aware of the impact of marriage on CGT when she sold the house, so a nomination seems unlikely.

What do we know about Vicarage Road? How many bedrooms?

I’m just wondering how she could have lived there with, I presume, the two children from the marriage and her brother - assuming it’s true that he was an occupant.

Or is the idea that the children lived with her ex-husband full time and she just popped in now and again to see her kids?

I may well have got the timeline confused.

How come AR is a witch for having a fling while separated but not yet divorced, but it's totally fine that Boris Johnson moved his mistress into Downing Street in 2019, two years before his second divorce was finalised?

It doesn’t matter if she did. After marriage, unless they lived there together it wasn’t their default main residence, but if she didn’t live there it wouldn’t stop them from nominating it as their main residence (as long as it wasn’t rented out).

Also, worth noting that she could claim relief for the period she lived there before her marriage and the last 18 months of ownership.

Has anybody endorsed that rather odd position?

The BBC certainly seemed fine with it all, barely mentioning the, erm, overlap until 17 paragraphs in:

Johnson: Who is Prime Minister Boris Johnson's wife? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49192115

The Vicarage Road property only has two bedrooms and in fact Angela Rayner has three children - so five occupants including her brother.

Clavinova made the point up thread that AR might have been liable for repayment of discount on the council house purchase.

I should clarify that I was replying to a suggestion that AR could have sold her property within 18 months of her marriage to avoid capital gains tax - but in that scenario she would only have owned the property for three or four years and would therefore be required to pay back a portion of the Right to Buy discount.

Merrymouse

Thanks for your link on Thurs but I don't think it changes my understanding or my previous reply to IClaudine.

If Angela Rayner and her husband didn't make a nomination within the first two years of their marriage then they lost their chance to do so - regardless of whether the rules allowed them to vary a nomination at a later date (unless they purchased a third property we don't know about which apparently allows them to reset the clock). Happy to be corrected.

Also in your link;

properties which are let out are not occupied as a residence and consequently cannot be nominated as the taxpayer’s main residence

Of course, Angela Rayner's exemption could be lettings relief (I did ask you about this earlier in the thread) - but that would be an awkward admission for her now and perhaps open a new can of worms.

How can you possibly state that MP’s deliberately starve children!

The Times 11 April 2024

More than a dozen of Angela Rayner’s former neighbours have yet to be contacted by police who are reviewing a decision not to investigate claims that she broke electoral law.

The force said in March that she would not face an investigation. However, it later confirmed it would reassess this decision after James Daly, a Conservative MP, complained that officers appeared not to have contacted witnesses or looked at the electoral roll, deeds or other relevant documents.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-have-yet-to-ask-angela-rayners-neighbours-about-house-sale-mzgl9qclg

Mr Daly has written to the force to say he was 'concerned that my complaint may not, so far, have been handled properly'. The force even wrongly spelled her name 'Raynor' in its response, prompting him to ask 'whether you investigated the correct Angela Rayner'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13205463/Police-did-not-probe-allegations-Angela-Rayners-council-house-case-Tories-claim.html

Well, they did choose to vote to not continue to provide free school meals over the holidays for the poorest of children at a time life was tougher than it had ever been. Until they were shamed into reversing that decision by a football player. And those MPs who voted the way they did were Tories. It was all over the news at the time, I'm surprised you've forgotten it. Or perhaps I'm not.

I think the thing that suggests that CGT may be due is AR’s lack of understanding of CGT.

If she knew about lettings relief I don’t think she would have said her brother didn’t pay rent.

However I think I have reached the end of speculating about what she did or didn’t do!

I am interested to know how either HMRC or the police are supposed to resolve this either way, given the time that has passed.

I don’t support any particular party at the moment. Just thought you were being a tad over dramatic! And why are you surprised? You don’t even know me.

She was a full-time union official when she bought her house in 2007 - she is being somewhat disingenuous claiming she was a care worker at the time of the purchase/sale.

The absolute, unblinkered support of Raynor on here is astounding.

Why?

Merrymouse
I think the thing that suggests that CGT may be due is AR’s lack of understanding of CGT

That's certainly a reasonable assumption.

If she knew about lettings relief I don’t think she would have said her brother didn’t pay rent.

When did she say her brother didn't pay rent?

She tweeted that she had never been a 'landlady' - personally I don't think that's the same as never being a landlord - 'landlady' suggests a different relationship to a landlord. The lettings relief could be the recent tax advice she is not willing to disclose.

I am interested to know how either HMRC or the police are supposed to resolve this either way, given the time that has passed

Yes - that is puzzling, although of course she was a parliamentary candidate for the 2015 election at the time the property was sold - not just a voter. Candidates are required to register their correct address under electoral rules.

I can't help feeling there has been some updating of lines over the past couple of days. Also, some posters may have been doing some obsessive digging.

Was she?

Maybe that promotion enabled her to buy the house then.

She wasn't a MP