Angela Rayner

Sponsored Links
Starmer has form on putting plod under political pressure to get off the hook
He was never on the hook if you are referring to party gate (the labour years), I agree they could have all gone back and eaten a marmite sandwich in their respective hotels. But what he did was not outside the law or the spirit of the law. Its what happen when the spads from different parties talk to each other.
 
Sponsored Links
He was living there, she wasn't is the conclusion, backed up by her social media posts.

If she's gonna chuck stones, better not live in a glass house.
 
He did live there for a period. AR has already said that. There's no evidence he was paying rent and income tax fraud, as you have suggested several times.
 
He did live there for a period. AR has already said that. There's no evidence he was paying rent and income tax fraud, as you have suggested several times.
strange to call your sister your land lady then.
What do you do if you can't sell your right to buy house due to claw back... rent it out?

Could open a bigger can of worms if it was mortgaged, let alone declaring taxes on the income and of course it impacts your residence relief.

hence why its best to deny it.
is what I actually said.
 
Name me one Conservative leader who had his gay lover's dog shot.
Wasn't that Jeremy Thorpe.
I thought he was a liberal?
Terrible scandal, the only job he could get after it, was as a manhole inspector.
 
We could always stick to the facts…..

Here is a tax expert with exactly that

There is currently press speculation that Labour Deputy Leader Angela Rayner failed to pay CGT on her house sale. Ms Rayner’s statement suggests she may have misunderstood the law. In some scenarios that could mean she failed to pay CGT of up to £3,500, but potentially less or zero. The amount of tax involved is therefore small but, in the interests of transparency, it would be helpful for Ms Rayner to clarify the position.

Here’s what appears to have happened, based on press reports and Angela Rayner’s statement:

  • Angela Rayner bought her house on Vicarage Road in Stockport for £79,000 in January 2007.
  • In September 2010, AR married Mark Rayner. At some point shortly before or after that date, AR moved into MR’s house.
  • AR’s brother moved into her house from that time. AR didn’t charge him rent.1
  • AR sold her property in March 2015 for £127,500. So a gain of £48,500 before we consider costs of acquisition/disposal (such as estate agent fees) and improvements such as extensions etc.
  • MR’s property was sold in April 2016 for £145,250. We don’t know the purchase date or price.
  • AR and MR separated in 2020
Ms Rayner says “As with the majority of ordinary people who sell their own homes, I was not liable for capital gains tax because it was my home and the only one I owned.”

This, however, isn’t how the rules work. Married couples2 can only have one principal residence for CGT purposes. A married couple who own more than one home are free to choose which is their “principal residence” for CGT purposes by sending a nomination to HMRC within two years of the situation arising.

I suspect many people would find every part of this surprising. Most taxation works by reference to individuals, so it’s odd this rule allows only one principal residence per married couple. Odder still that marriage potentially creates a big tax disadvantage. And even more curious that you are free to choose which property is your “principal residence” without reference to whether it really is. It’s therefore hard to blame Ms Rayner for misunderstanding the rules.

But it’s important to remember two things:

First, the tax system is complicated, and lots of people accidentally pay the wrong amount of tax (I’ve done it myself). That’s not a crime. It’s not a crime even if you’re careless or negligent. Ignorance is a defence to the crime of tax evasion. Calls for prosecutions for tax evasion were silly when we were talking about Nadhim Zahawi; they’re plain daft when we’re talking about Angela Rayner.

Second, everyone still has a duty to pay the correct amount of tax, and ignorance is no defence to having to pay it. Pay the wrong amount of tax (for any reason) and you’ll have to make up the difference, plus interest. And if you were careless, or fail to fess up to HMRC, then you’ll pay penalties too.

How much CGT is due​

There are, broadly speaking,3 three possible scenarios:

1. AR and MR nominated AR’s house as their principal residence from 2010 to 2015

Again, it may seem weird that you can nominate somewhere as your principal residence when you don’t live there, but you can provided it’s been your home at some point, and you’re not renting it out. Letting someone live there for free is fine, and there’s no suggestion AR charged her brother rent.4

In this scenario then AR had no CGT to pay, but MR potentially had CGT on his 2016 sale – if there was a gain (we know nothing about whether there was or not).

2. AR and MR nominated MR’s house as their principal residence

AR still gets the principal residence relief for the three years before her marriage. She also automatically received principal residence relief for the last 18 months of her ownership.5

When the relief applies for part of a period of ownership, you make a simple pro-rata calculation. AR therefore is exempt for about 63% of the gain, and taxable for 37%.6

What’s the gain? It’s the £127,500 sale price less the £79,000 purchase price, i.e. £48,500. AR should also deduct “allowable expenditure“. This will include estate agent, survey and conveyancing costs on the sale and purchase- I’d guesstimate all of this was around £4,000.7 There may also have been costs of improving the house, for example building an extension or conservatory – broadly speaking anything that adds value (but decorating doesn’t count). I’ll assume for the moment there were no improvement costs (that may be wrong given Ms Rayner’s reference to her brother being good at DIY).

So if we limit the allowable expenses to that £4k, the pro-rated gain would be £16k (£44,500 x 37%).

The CGT annual exemption amount for 2014/15 was £11,000. Meaning a taxable gain of about £5k and CGT of about £1.5k.8

And if AR had spent £15k or more on improvements, there would be no gain

So if we are in this scenario, and AR spent less than £15k on improvements, it may be that she accidentally failed to pay up to £1.5k of CGT. The rules are pretty complicated, with lots of special cases, so it would be wrong to assume this is the correct number. It is, however, probably the upper limit,10 and there are circumstances which could result in a smaller figure.

The other point about this scenario is that AR probably deserves more criticism: if she understood enough about the rules to make a nomination, then why didn’t she pay the correct amount of tax?

But it is of course also possible, and probably most likely, that she made no nomination at all.

3. AR and MR didn’t make a nomination

In that case the principal private residence relief applies by reference to the property that was AR and MR’s main residence as a matter of fact.

If AR moved in with MR from 2010 then that means the result will be the same as in scenario 2. If she moved in the year before, then she’d be exempt for about 48% of the gain rather than 63%. So more CGT to pay – about £3.5k rather than £1.5k.

Or the other way to view this is that, if she’d moved into MR’s house in 2009, AR would need to have spent £23k11 on improvements to have no capital gain.

The £3.5k figure is again probably an upper limit,12 and there are circumstances (aside from improvement expenditure) which could result in a smaller figure

Meanwhile back at the Ranch.
Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians and all the other anians are looting the UK.
If Labour wants power they need to sort these feckers out.
Labour used to represent British Labour.
Instead of going down rabbit holes about council houses, they need to find out what British people actually want.
 
Instead of going down rabbit holes about council houses, they need to find out what British people actually want
what British people want is affordable homes...so massive council house building programme is needed
 
Perhaps we should start judging Tory corruption & incompetence on a RaynerScale ?

If “1 Rayner” = £1,500 ……then
2 Rayners = 2 x the required effort by the police to investigate Simples!

The Donellan libel comes in at “20 Rayners”
Whilst Boris ‘s flat refurb comes in at a cool 95 Rayners

…and Michelle Mone is a jaw dropping 150,000 Rayners!

I’m sure others can come out with bigger ToryCorruption scandals than that?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top