Rayner cleared.

eazybee

Well, that is a surprise.
Not.
Like she and Starmer being cleared of having a picnic during covid.

Oh please. It was hardly on the epic scale of the other lot.

This was nothing but a smear campaign by the Tory supporting Daily Mail,.

😃

Germanshepherdsmum

Hearsay has a particular meaning in law, which is generally misunderstood, I will leave it at that.

No misunderstanding here

Hearsay has a particular meaning in law, which is generally misunderstood, I will leave it at that.

🥳🥳🥳🥳
Not surprised in the slightest.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think, Casdon, that like most people who are not lawyers you don’t know what ‘hearsay’. means in law. I can tell you that if HMRC believe they have a case against someone the amount in question is irrelevant - that has resulted in some very well known people being prosecuted for tax evasion. I know their names.

That’s not relevant though is it, I used hearsay in the context of you repeating something in here that you had been told? The word doesn’t appear in the BBC article, which does not bear out what you were told.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think, Casdon, that like most people who are not lawyers you don’t know what ‘hearsay’. means in law. I can tell you that if HMRC believe they have a case against someone the amount in question is irrelevant - that has resulted in some very well known people being prosecuted for tax evasion. I know their names.

Al Capone? That would be the IRS, though, I suppose.

It is always dangerous to use the criminal law to pursue political opponents. I have no liking for Angela Raynor nor her colleagues but I think all this business has been an appalling use of police time and a distraction from the real issues. I would like to think that for at least the next few weeks we will have a chance to consider the real issues that afflict this country and how they can best be put right.

I think, Casdon, that like most people who are not lawyers you don’t know what ‘hearsay’. means in law. I can tell you that if HMRC believe they have a case against someone the amount in question is irrelevant - that has resulted in some very well known people being prosecuted for tax evasion. I know their names.

Why does GermanShepherds mum always have to make comments and end with a question mark. VERVE means vigour and spirit or enthusiasm. GermanShepherdsMum queries everything and should go online and see what the words mean instead of querying it.

DiamondLily

I did work for HMRC, and no one suggested a criminal prosecution.

They will pursue, however, any money that is owed to them, regardless of time limits.

Normally, all this, rightly, will be confidential.

Not if it is outwith the time limit or de minimus.

Perhaps you would outline the law that suggests that HMRC will pursue this money regardless off time and amount?

I did work for HMRC, and no one suggested a criminal prosecution.

They will pursue, however, any money that is owed to them, regardless of time limits.

Normally, all this, rightly, will be confidential.

Germanshepherdsmum

I know a lot more than you might think about the HMRC inquiry branch, of which I think you were not a member. I will simply say that the amount in question is not the deciding factor in pursuing a prosecution. The person from whom I have my information was until recently a very senior official in the inquiry branch. If people’s tax affairs were confidential would we know so much about Zahawi’s settlement? The decision to prosecute is above your pay grade wwm, admit it.

That is very rude Germanshpherdsmum. You have no idea what other people’s jobs were, and you never worked for HMRC. You are commenting based on hearsay, and not borne out by what the BBC have now reported.

‘The BBC has been told by a Labour source that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) concluded Angela Rayner did not owe any Capital Gains Tax over the sale of her former council house.

The agency is unlikely to comment itself because of tax privacy rules - but we’ve asked it just in case.

What we can say for sure is that the threshold for the HMRC to begin a probe that could lead to prosecution is so high it was always unlikely it would go down that route, even if it had thought there was money owing.

"Criminal investigation will be reserved for cases where HMRC needs to send a strong deterrent message or where the conduct involved is such that only a criminal sanction is appropriate," it says in its public policy.’

Examples include probes into organised crime and incidents linked to abuse of positions of responsibility, or deliberate deception.

Even when the HMRC suspects someone of really serious fraud, it will often make them a contractual offer: Promise to fully disclose what has been going on, and we will promise not to open a criminal file.

She’s Teflon coated…got away with the beer/curry early dart Friday during COVID which she ‘didn’t recall’ attending then suddenly ‘remembered’ that she was working…

Poor old teetotaller Rishi wasn’t accorded a bye on Boris birthday cake as he popped in was he?

Well, sort of.

The police were only entitled to investigate the potential election misinformation - not Raynor’s tax affairs. So what they have passed to HMRC is nothing more than they can easily find out for themselves.

With regard to tax owing.

If it is deemed that Rayner innocently underpaid capital gains - then there was a 4 year window for HMRC to assess Raynor for the tax. If she did indeed owe the money - she may have already paid it or not. We simply don’t know, neither do we have any right to know.

I know a lot more than you might think about the HMRC inquiry branch, of which I think you were not a member. I will simply say that the amount in question is not the deciding factor in pursuing a prosecution. The person from whom I have my information was until recently a very senior official in the inquiry branch. If people’s tax affairs were confidential would we know so much about Zahawi’s settlement? The decision to prosecute is above your pay grade wwm, admit it.

eazybee

Well, that is a surprise.
Not.
Like she and Starmer being cleared of having a picnic during covid.

As I said, the haters will continue to hate, regardless of any evidence.

Well, that is a surprise.
Not.
Like she and Starmer being cleared of having a picnic during covid.

Please read the last sentence of this quote.

Peter WalkerandVikram Dodd
Tue 28 May 2024 17.19 BST
Share
"Angela Rayner has been cleared of any potential criminal wrongdoing over claims she avoided tax over the sale of a home, withGreater Manchesterpolice saying it would take no action against the Labour deputy leader.
In a statement, the force said any claims she avoided capital gains tax or council tax would not fall under their jurisdiction, and that they had shared details of their investigation with the local council, Stockport, and HMRC. Neither of these plan to take action either."
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/28/angela-rayner-cleared-of-criminal-wrongdoing-over-sale-of-home#:~:text=Angela%20Rayner%20has%20been%20cleared,against%20the%20Labour%20deputy%20leader.

I think this is the last we will hear of it. She has been cleared by the police and the Council have also confirmed they will take no further action. If she does owe HMRC anything, which apparently according to experts could be up to £3500 if the case is proven, it will be between them and her, she is unlikely to be prosecuted, and it won’t be in the public domain.

My conclusion is that this situation has done her no harm at all. However, the haters will continue to hate, and her supporters will continue to support. It changes nothing.

Whitewavemark2

I am sorry but you are wrong.

No one has any idea whether HMRC are investigating Raynor, and will never know. Neither, will you know if in the very doubtful event (I would say 99% certain that they won’t) they decide that Raynor owes an amount if tax (perhaps a couple of thousand) as tax affairs are completely private.

Look at Zahawi - Tories don’t do anything by halves do they😄😄

The Greater Manchester Police have cleared her of any criminal charges. Fine, all good.

They have passed the information gathered to HRMC, and they will do what they think right.

Whether it stays confidential will depend on whether anyone leaks anything, as with others. Like Zahawi.

If she owes money, she will be expected to repay it, but no criminal charges will be levelled. If she doesn’t owe anything, it’s done and dusted.

No one knows.🤷‍♀️

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m sure it does, but AR counts as a big fish.

Not if you knew who HMRC have prosecuted.

HMRC operates strictly within the law - it does of course have to be extremely careful when dealing with high profile individuals, but it is all done within the tight parameters of tax/vat law, so the level of tax potentially owed by Raynor is very small beer indeed.

I am sorry but you are wrong.

No one has any idea whether HMRC are investigating Raynor, and will never know. Neither, will you know if in the very doubtful event (I would say 99% certain that they won’t) they decide that Raynor owes an amount if tax (perhaps a couple of thousand) as tax affairs are completely private.

Look at Zahawi - Tories don’t do anything by halves do they😄😄

Well said DiamondLily. 👏