Angela Rayner slams ‘smears’ over council house sale

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 22/03/2024 - 16:38
We've had lots of liars and tax dodgers in public office both in England and north of the border 🙂 .... we've also had people in public office who behaved as though the rules shouldn't apply to them...and we've had plenty of people working for unions who think they should be entitled to more 'rights'.

But if the neighbours were right and Angela Rayner wasn't living there as her main home for the five years after the purchase then what this would go to show is that Angela Rayner is no better than any of our other leaders that she's been attacking. Whether she understood the tax rules or not at the time of the house purchase she will definitely have understood the rules that apply for somebody to be eligible for a discount on their council house.

And if she didn't live there for the five years after the sale then she wasn't eligible for that discount. There are millions of people in this country paying higher rates of stamp duty on second properties that are being stung for far less than Ms Rayner will have got away with if the reports from the neighbours are true.

Why doesn't HMRC investigate? If Ms Raynor's not at fault then Mr Raynor's affairs should be looked at. Maybe his house was designated their main residence too or was it their 2nd home?

Reply to the comment left by JB at 22/03/2024 - 17:34
Banks only have an obligation to keep details of bank accounts for six years after closure so it can be hard to investigate after this amount of time.

If it was a company HMRC would go back 4 years if they suspected a mistake, 6 years if they thought it was careless or 20 years if they suspect tax evasion or fraud.

https://www.companydebt.com/hmrc/how-far-back-can-hmrc-investigate-tax-affairs/#:~:text=As%20a%20basic%20rule%2C%20HMRC,suspect%20tax%20evasion%20or%20fraud.

For an inheritance tax investigation HMRC probably wouldn't go back further than 7 years.

https://www.thp.co.uk/inheritance-tax-investigations/#:~:text=If%20a%20property%20is%20sold,%277%2Dyear%20rule%27.

So even if they suspected a mistake they might not go back after this long a time. It's not just a question of whether they should do it. It's also a question of whether they have a reasonable chance of finding the evidence they need or the powers to require the evidence to be produced. After this amount of time the evidence might just not be there. It's got nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of tax fraud so much as what are the chances of success?

But if the neighbours are right and she wasn't living at the property then she wasn't entitled to the discount on the council house. And she will have known that.

Reply to the comment left by Gas man at 22/03/2024 - 10:39
My understanding of what she has said is that her confidence is based on the professional advice she received.

Reply to the comment left by Glynn Jones at 23/03/2024 - 09:43
Or maybe she looked to spread the blame, either way it stinks

Her income tax return should show how much income she received from renting out her pad. Did she declare it?

Carchester

Reply to the comment left by Carchester at 23/03/2024 - 12:30
You only have to keep income tax returns for HMRC for 5 years so it’s doubtful that anyone could oblige her to produce the records this long after the event. And in any case, if she had a family member living in the property it would be more likely that he paid cash.

The rules for main residence relief are relatively clear.
1. You can only have 1 main residence - if you live between 2 houses you can "nominate" within 2 years which is your main residence, it doesn't have to be the one you spend the most time at (but you do actually have to live at both)
2. A husband and wife however can only have 1 main residence between them, again you can "jointly" nominate within 2 years, it needs to be jointly nominated or it isn't a valid nomination.
3. If you don't nominate in time as husband and wife it is taken on the facts (where you spend the most time, where your children are registered and so on)
- On the facts if they didn't nominate a property - her husbands property was "their main residence" - the fact their children were registered there, and its clear she spent most time there would make it main residence based on the facts.
- Or they nominated Angela's property (within 2 years) as main residence, then her husbands property would owe CGT on its sale.
- Or she spent over 15k on work to her property which would likely negate the CGT due.
Considering She's made it clear she didn't understand the rules, and had to take advice now - we can safely assume she (they) didn't nominate her property as main residence. Therefore she owes CGT (unless she can evidence capital expenditure on improvements)

Reply to the comment left by city boy at 23/03/2024 - 15:13
I think what you say is likely to be true on the basis of what I’ve read. But the question is, can either HMRC or the police prove that and can either organisation oblige her to produce the details this many years after the sale?

Either way on the basis of the available facts it looks as though Angela Rayner wasn’t entitled to an enormous discount on the sale of a public asset. Because to qualify for that discount you are obliged to keep living there as your main home for 5 years, and this will have been explained to her at the time.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 23/03/2024 - 12:51I read that the house was rented to her brother, so it seems clear that she knew what she was doing did not 'conform' to the rules.