In this instance, the police are simply a tool being used by the Tory government (again) to pursue a minor misdemeanor (at best). The police don't need to know WHAT they're investigating, the Tories just need people to believe that they ARE investigating.
I don't even know what the curry story is!
But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.Just thought I'd look up Angie's diabolical tax fraud debacle....
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
A simple guide to the Angela Rayner house row
Labour's deputy leader has been embroiled in a row over her living arrangements before she was an MP.www.bbc.co.uk
TL-DRBut it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
Her husband's house was about a mile away in Stockport - not in London.But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
But not in the Daily Fail, though
Under UK tax law, married couples can only have one primary residence for tax purposes, and are liable for capital gains tax on the profit from the sale of any other homes. Dan Neidle, founder of the Tax Policy Associates think tank, has estimated Rayner could have been liable to pay £1,500 ($1,871) of capital gains tax on the sale of her home, assuming she made a profit of £48,500. But that could be reduced to zero if she spent £15,000 on home improvements.But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
Presumably the increase in value before she married wouldn't be counted?
www.theguardian.com
I wonder where that leaves the 2 Ms ( maria and mimsie) , ? Both junior health ministers?Tory MP defects to Labour.
Top Tory MP defects to Labour in fury at NHS crisis
Ex-health minister Dan Poulter, who also works as a hospital doctor, says Conservatives have become ‘nationalist party of the right’
Good reading. The fact that he is doing this to highlight how awful the Government are rather than to seek re-election later this year (he’ll be standing down) makes him a good chap in my book. Not all Tories are c***s. It’s mostly the current leadership who are just plain nasty, corrupt and incompetent.Tory MP defects to Labour.
Top Tory MP defects to Labour in fury at NHS crisis
Ex-health minister Dan Poulter, who also works as a hospital doctor, says Conservatives have become ‘nationalist party of the right’
