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.

If she lived there and had two homes in the marriage, one that’s sold is liable to CGT because it’s a second home!!! It’s simple. I pop in and out of my second home. It’s still liable for CGT when it’s sold. It’s clear what the rules are and, as a married couple, one house is your main residence. A second house is not. What would AR think if we all tried to avoid CGT on second homes? She might not have made much taxable gain from the sale but the principle is the same for all.

I have never voted conservative.

This is definitely true as I've looked into how to get round CGT for our own purposes and as far as I could see there isn't a legal way you can avoid paying it as a married couple with more than 1 property. Even if you unexpectedly inherit the second property.

You can nominate one of the houses. It wouldn’t have mattered that her brother was staying there.

However, if PPR was claimed on the first house, that would then need to be taken into account when the second house was sold, and I suspect that is where the correct declaration wasn’t made.

No, ‘a second home is not a second home’. There was nothing to stop her nominating the first house as her PPR. The problem would have arisen if that wasn’t taken into account when the second home was sold, and PPR was effectively claimed on 2 properties in the same period by a married couple.

Yes. You have one nominated “home” or PPR. Not two at the same time. The other home becomes a second home as we all understand it and certainly for tax purposes. The idea she didn’t know this is ludicrous.

Exactly. So if the appropriate CGT was paid when the second property was sold, no wrongdoing has occurred.

Why is it ludicrous?

At the time it was sold she was Labour PPC for her current seat. Nothing in her background as a care worker and union official means she should understand CGT and the complex rules around it and allowances that might reduce/eliminate the amount payable.

Even as an MP I'm not sure why she'd be expected to have that knowledge.

@Bromptotoo Are you serious?? She’s a law maker! She’s supposed to be intelligent. She’s not supposed to not know basic tax policy. It’s basic. Who on earth wants this level of ignorance in a mp? Of course it was not ignorance was it? It was evasion.

@TizerorFizz She's a lawmaker now but wasn't at the time of sale.

Even sitting on the front bench doesn't give you insight into the intricacies of CGT. I'm a heavy consumer of news and current affairs and work in the advice sector. I'm not sure I'd have grasped the rules and in particular that this backwater was one where married couples were, in effect, taxed jointly.

But we can agree to differ.

Your explanation implied that you weren’t aware that the first home could be a PPR.

@Bromptotoo Sorry - that’s ridiculous. All MPs are law makers. They sit on committees and review legislation. They formulate policies in readiness for government. She can bring bills to the House. She should have taken advice if she was unsure. So we really end up saying she wasn’t bright enough to know about CGT? I don’t buy that.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

Angela Rayner says questions over her tax affairs are a 'smear' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68632621

I agree with you. I would like to think I’m generally clued up, but I would have needed help understanding the CGT position. Mind you, I’ve never owned two properties.

Ignorance of (a commonly applied UK law) is no defence.

Also: every single one of us has a duty to report our financial affairs accurately, so not knowing is no excuse.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying When you do (and she did) you need to know the tax position. Every year you are required to declare income from it. She probably claimed expenses on it. Not knowing is pure ignorance .

When it comes to tax law, it literally is.

You would obviously still have to pay any tax due plus interest, and a penalty for failing to exercise reasonable care might be applied, but nobody would be taking you to court.

“Not knowing is pure ignorance .”

Yes, that is a definition of ‘not knowing’.

If the press go digging for dirt on a politician and this capital gains non story is the best they can come up with that just makes me think- wow, Angela Rayner is squeaky clean!

And as for middle class people wailing about working class single mothers buying up council houses…
I am fully in favour of right to buy. I’ve lived on council estates and they are much nicer places to be when the residents are a mixture of council tenants and owners. Ghettos aren’t fun.
Also, 90 odd percent of lone parents are women. Children of lone parents are far more likely to live in poverty. As a single mum I wouldn’t have been able to buy a house any other way (no bank of mum and Dad) I didn’t buy my council house in the end but I could have. Anything that enables single mothers to own property and ( as the Tories would have it) level up is a good thing to me as a feminist and a socialist.
They should build more housing estates not stop people from moving up in the world.

Thank you. I’m quite happy to believe it is. TBH, even if some ‘wrong’ has happened it’s barely a story at all anyway.

My beef is with the persistent allegations of massive corruption in the government, which as far as I can see have no foundation.

Not paying your taxes is most definitely a criminal offence as I know someone who went to jail for fiddling their taxes. I'm pretty sure if I didn't pay tax for years and lied on my self assessment form then I'd end up in court, even if I claimed I didn't realise I had to pay tax.

However, not paying CGT is unlikely to end up with you in court (unless you're a repeat offender). It doesn't mean it's okay though!!!

So the Tories are better because they're honest about their thievery, lack of morality and general ability to bend the rules.

🙄

How is Labour (or the Libs or the SNP etc) more moral than any other party? Believing in greater state intervention, higher taxes and enhanced union rights, for example, doesn’t make anyone more moral than the next person. It’s a political outlook, not a code for righteous living.