Rayner cleared.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

🥳🥳🥳🥳
Not surprised in the slightest.

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

Germanshepherdsmum

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

No misunderstanding here

😃

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

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.

Tell you what eazybee. Il take your £3k (the absolute maximum due if Rayner owed anything) and raise it by £3000000 penalty paid by Zahawi ( guess what the principle sum was!! Well don’t because I can’t confirm it.

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

I agree Casdon. We can all ‘discuss’ this until we’re blue in the face, but those who didn’t like AR before, still don’t like here and vice versa. What I’ve learned from the N&P thread is that many of us are worlds apart, and nothing will change that.

Whitewavemark2

Tell you what eazybee. Il take your £3k (the absolute maximum due if Rayner owed anything) and raise it by £3000000 penalty paid by Zahawi ( guess what the principle sum was!! Well don’t because I can’t confirm it.

It’s also unlikely to have harmed Rayner (or Starmer given his support for her).

The house was bought in 2007. She sold it in 2015, The gain was £48k. The assessable gain is calculated on the formula:

Gain = period of occupation + 9 months
period of ownership

As I do not know the exact purchase and sale dates I am working on whole years. So the period of allowable occupation was 45 months (36 +9) and the period of ownership was 96 months so the theoretical gain was £22.5k.

The CGT exemption in 2015/16 was £11,100 so her taxable gain would have been £11.4k.

When she was chosen to be a parliamentary candidate she was a Union official, having worked her way up through the ranks. No idea what her salary was at that time but assuming that it was below the BR her CGT gain would have been £2,28k by my calcs. I'm not far off the £3k mentioned in the press.

I have recently done a tax calc on the transfer of a 1/2 share of a house in London. Unfortunately my client did not check
with me and he was more than 9 months over the period of occupation and so had a large CGT liability. He did not know about this nor did his expensive London property solicitor tell him. Just saying!!

I think that many people will not be aware that there is a finite period of ownership of one's PPR if one lives elsewhere.

Germanshepherdsmum

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

On an MP's salary (plus a bit more for being shadow deputy leader??) Hardly a big fish.