Angela Rayner is facing new questions about her financial affairs after it emerged that capital gains tax may be owed on another property.
Ms Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, insists that a house she sold for a large profit in 2015 was her main residence – which, if true, means her husband Mark Rayner should have paid capital gains tax on a property he sold the following year.
Tax experts said the couple would have had “two bites of the cherry” if neither paid capital gains tax when the properties were sold.
Police are investigating multiple allegations against Ms Rayner, with at least a dozen officers assigned to the case.
This is not, wholly and exactly, the most difficult piece of investigation ever. Sight of the tax returns is probably all that is needed. So why a dozen officers on this?
Because they are investigating more than just tax fraud. There is also election fraud, though that is out of scope because it’s too late. Then there is the fraud from selling an ex council home that was not lived in for the required number of years.
One to investigate and the other eleven to find evidence to exonerate her?
Presumably all twelve are scanning through social media in the hope of uncovering newsworthy offensive tweets. Nobody is actually doing any detecting, not that it needs a Poirot. The game here is burying the facts, not uncovering them.
With 12, the combined IQ should exceed 100.
It’s probably part of the new emphasis in the actions of the police SERVICE. Just as the Met helpfully explained to concerned bystanders that thousands of Muslims marching through the streets calling for “jihad” did not necessarily mean a Salman Rushdie type death threat and that in this case it probably meant “Lets sit down and have a chat about this over a coffee” or, as in the case of a Jewish tourist upset by the sight of the marchers displaying a swastika, this did not necessarily mean a display of a Nazi symbol but in this case was much more likely to have been a display of an ancient religious symbol and perfectly harmless.
This emphasis has been urged on the SERVICE by the mayor in his search for promoting inclusivity…
In Miss Rayner’s case it’s probably to provide careful tax planning of the new, progressive, retrospective sort in an effort not to create undue mental stress on a poor, simple, innocent woman.
Because they want to be seen to be doing something without actually doing anything. Time will pass, Labour will be elected and then they can quietly drop the matter with “No wrong-doing was found” or the new classic “Offences discovered did not meet the criminal standard for prosecutions”.
It’s just a way of kicking it into the long grass without saying so.
The number of people working on it is an indication of how hard its proving to exonerate her, which of course is the point of the exercise, like the ‘investigation’ into the Labour Curry & Beers event during covid. Which itself was a travesty of justice – if Boris Johnson being ambushed by a birthday cake in the middle of his working day in his working space was a breach of covid rules, then Sir Kneel and Co having a nice beer and curry together at the end of a hard days campaigning definitely was.
@grist that’s “poor, simple, innocent working-class woman”, if you please. She is just a victim of the wealthy elite’s oppressive capitalism system, brother.
Get with the program @Jim – BoJo was 3 prime ministers ago!
There may also have been council tax fraud – who knows? Not us if the rozzers achieve what they are presumably trying to achieve.
When there’s a huge fuss about what might well be a pretty minor fraud does that imply she’s hiding something much bigger and this whole thing is intended as a distraction?
I was assuming that that next tory shirtlifter suspended this morning was the intended distraction.
– So why a dozen officers on this?
If she was Angela Trump you wouldn’t think twice as to why. I’m not sufficiently interested to follow this closely but when I see a politician getting this kind of attention I generally assume there’s as much chance the real story is that a piece is being removed from the board.
Since it seems likely to be a Labour elected government, the permanent government will want to shape it.
The woman is obviously guilty because there are two actions available to her:
(a) say “Tax is too complicated for my little brain. It was an honest mistake that anyone could have made and I have sent a cheque for £2,000 to the HMRC. I consider the matter closed.”; or
(b) say “Here’s the tax advice I received from my accountants. They are clear that I did nothing wrong and the correct amount has been paid.”
The fact that she has gone into hiding instead of pursuing either option is rather telling, is it not?
The fact that she has gone into hiding instead of pursuing either option is rather telling, is it not?
Or she’s waiting for the fix to be fixed. “We have investigated thoroughly & no evidence of criminality could be found” It wouldn’t be. Most likely a repeat of the last “investigation” except this time they’re doing theatre of going through the motions.
Unless Sir Kneeler has decided that gobby slag is useful in opposition but not in government. In which case under the bus.
None of this sounds right. Your house doesn’t lose it’s tax-exempt status just because your bit of fluff moves in and she also owns a house. And your bit of fluff’s house doesn’t lose its tax-exempt status just because she’s moved out of it and moved in with you. It loses its tax-exempt status once you’ve disposed of it and aquired another tax-exempt property.
Are the Tories *really* saying that when couples shack up together they should pay a 40% tax bill?
Marriage. Single household – therefore only the one CGT free primary residence.
The theory I currently believe goes along the lines that the ginger growler is sufficiently mental to appease the corbynite wing of the party, so “sir” keir is doing all he can to sweep the problem under the carpet. The danger for him is that if she has to resign, the replacement gets voted in by the membership and he will likely end up with an openly hamas-supporting deputy.
BiW,
He can’t sack her as deputy leader as that position is voted on by the membership. He. Outdoor sack her from the shadow cabinet that would just start Labour’s civil war earlier than expected.
@Chris Miller – “two actions”
Neither of those work. In addition to paying the tax, you also have to pay interest. And, unless you drew HMRC’s attention to something which they otherwise would have missed, you’ll generally also have to pay some form of penalty. And, of course, there’s the principle of the thing. The Labour party is very keen on complaining about tax avoidance, tax evasion, and getting people to pay “fair” taxation. It could be terminal to her career as a left-wing politician to admit that she had paid to little tax.
She’d probably be better off claiming that she paid the correct amount of tax and it was her husband who got it wrong.
“She’d probably be better off claiming that she paid the correct amount of tax and it was her husband who got it wrong.”
A dangerous strategy – if there’s one person who can pretty categorically say where she was actually living, its her estranged husband……..not the best idea to throw him under the bus in such circumstances.
Indeed, jim – vide l’affaire Huhne.