Angela Rayner's CGT computation?

Anyone want to calculate Angela Rayner's CGT liability?

Didn't find your answer?

What I know is the following:

January 2007  AR buys her house for £79,000, AR marries in 2010, AR sells her house in March 2015 for £127,599.

In the worst case scenario I can think off her house qualifies for PPR for 2007-2010 and last three years of ownership 2012-2015 so only 2 out of 8 years is taxable. One quarter of the gain is £12,125. The CGT allowance was £11,000. Therefor CGT due (12125-11000) x 28% = £315. You would just need to add a few legal fees and other purchase and sale costs and perhaps some house repairs to easily wipe out any debt.

Have I got that right and is calling in the Police a total waste of public money and politically motivated?

 

Replies (24)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By FactChecker
12th Apr 2024 16:39

Is there are a real question in there (about CGT), or just a rhetorical political question?

FWIW for disposals of property after 5 April 2014, the 36 month final period exemption was shortened to 18 months (the date of disposal for CGT purposes is the date contracts are exchanged).

However, if your point is that MPs on *both* sides of the House were leaders in the art of ‘flipping’ a property (at least until the expenses scandal exposed the loophole to public scrutiny) ... then I would have no hesitation in agreeing with you.

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By FactChecker
12th Apr 2024 16:58

The 'interesting' political point (in that it shows the hypocrisy that seems to be spread equally across all MPs) is that almost 50% of the gain made by Angela was as a direct result of her arch nemesis (Maggie). That 25% discount under the Right to Buy scheme being very handy and wholly acceptable to Angela.

Thanks (4)
Replying to FactChecker:
DougScott
By Dougscott
12th Apr 2024 17:20

Ah okay, it changed before the date of sale then. However could it be AR can nominate her property for PPR for up to two years after marriage or have I misunderstood that one?

Thanks (0)
VAT
By Jason Croke
12th Apr 2024 16:56

I've seen various amounts between £1,200 and £3,000 on X and LinkedIn.

The news reports - unsurprisingly - are incorrect (or at least the headlines are), the Police have not been called because Rayner hasn't paid enough CGT, the Police have been called because of election reporting irregularities.

The issue seems to be Rayner has used one address as her main residence for the purposes of standing for election enrolment, but was actually living at property B according to her CGT position/living arrangements that have been publicly discussed these last few days.

Back in 2017, UKIP candidate Paul Nutall was caught by the same issue, he didn't live in the house in the constituency he said he lived in and technically such an election victory for him could have been void on basis he "lied" on his form when standing for election. No action was taken by the Police.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/paul-nuttall-stoke-byel...

The Police are acting on a complaint submitted by James Daly, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative party and current incumbent MP of Bury North (a swing seat where whichever party wins has statistically won the general election) and the CGT matter was raised by Lord Ashcroft who was also Deputy Chairman of the Conservatives in the past whilst being a non-dom and revealed via the Panama papers in 2017.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paradise-papers-latest-l...

I'd have thought this was a matter for the electoral commission and then the Police would get involved if wrong doing was found.

The current government must be so rattled that they are resorting to this kind of thing, if anything this will just increase Rayners popularity.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Jason Croke:
avatar
By David Ex
12th Apr 2024 17:30

Jason Croke wrote:

The current government must be so rattled that they are resorting to this kind of thing, if anything this will just increase Rayners popularity.

She’s made a career out of calling for others to be fully transparent and publish their tax returns, etc.. You can’t have it both ways when someone does the same to you.

Thanks (4)
Replying to David Ex:
VAT
By Jason Croke
12th Apr 2024 17:40

David Ex wrote:

Jason Croke wrote:

The current government must be so rattled that they are resorting to this kind of thing, if anything this will just increase Rayners popularity.

She’s made a career out of calling for others to be fully transparent and publish their tax returns, etc.. You can’t have it both ways when someone does the same to you.


I agree.

I think it was Labour who raised the flag on Paul Nuttall/UKIP so they are all doing it to each other but its' all a waste of police time and whilst accepting that politics is a dirty business, it really should be cleaner than this.

I recall Rayner had said she would publish her tax returns if Rishi did, Rishi published his....

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jason Croke:
David Winch
By David Winch
12th Apr 2024 19:59

Jason Croke wrote:

The news reports - unsurprisingly - are incorrect (or at least the headlines are), the Police have not been called because Rayner hasn't paid enough CGT, the Police have been called because of election reporting irregularities.

The issue seems to be Rayner has used one address as her main residence for the purposes of standing for election enrolment, but was actually living at property B according to her CGT position/living arrangements that have been publicly discussed these last few days.


In relation to offences of election irregularities, s176 Representation of the People Act 1983 sets a time limit for prosecutions to be commenced (presumably the thinking behind this is that election results should generally be seen as final and conclusive and not subject to investigations years afterwards). The section includes this -
A proceeding against a person in respect of any offence under any provision contained in or made under this Act shall be commenced within one year after the offence was committed.
So if, as I believe is the case, this is a police investigation into alleged election offences I would not be surprised to see the investigation closed quite swiftly (with no further action against Ms Rayner).
David
Thanks (1)
Replying to Jason Croke:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
14th Apr 2024 10:30

A huge number of MPs lie about where they live. My mothers old MP Pretti Patel nominally lives in Witham (a fairly run down commuter town in Essex). Reality is she doesnt. It was just her "constituency home". If you walked past it (its on a busy main road) it was always empty. And very small for a multimillionare family. It is almost certainly just used a crash pad. She no doubt has a much larger residence elsewhere but this is kept out of the public eye.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
12th Apr 2024 17:25

Since when are day-to-day property repairs CGT deductible? You've been reading too much DN methinks!

Thanks (3)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
12th Apr 2024 22:39

While the OP may have used “repairs” too loosely, who mentioned day-to-day repairs?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ruddles:
DougScott
By Dougscott
13th Apr 2024 08:43

Yes sorry should have said improvements. Bit lax in my wording but then I'm not advising Ms Rayner - I would be very, very careful if I was!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Dougscott:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
13th Apr 2024 14:28

A bit lax again, as most home improvments (bathroom, kitchen, windows, boilers etc.) are also non-CGT deductible (c.f. loft extension etc.).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By Ruddles
13th Apr 2024 22:29

It is obvious (to some) from the context that what the OP has in mind are improvements that would have been CGT -deductible.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By David Ex
12th Apr 2024 18:09

BBC News just reported 'Labour's Angela Rayner says she will "do the right thing and step down" if she has committed a criminal offence over council house claims' which is somewhat different from previous claims of complete innocence!

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
avatar
By More unearned luck
12th Apr 2024 19:39

Is this the sort of case that HMRC ever prosecute? The number of taxpayers who face criminal sanction each year are numbered in the 100s. Prosecution seem to be reserved for egregious cases such as Bernie Ecclestone, Lester Piggott and plumbers who for years don't make themselves known to HMRC. The reasons for this include the cost of prosecution and the high standard of proof.

I think that HMRC may as well go about to turn the sun to ice with fanning in his face with a peacock's feather.

She said what she said because she knows it will never happen.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By More unearned luck
12th Apr 2024 19:12

Unless HMRC can prove on a balance of probabilities that AR (or someone acting on her behalf) deliberately (which is tantamount to fraudulently) brought about a loss of tax, her liability is nil.

From my limited understanding of the facts it seems very unlikely that the loss of tax was brought about deliberately let alone HMRC being able to prove that it was.

Perhaps you should rephrase your question around EM3980.

Thanks (3)
Replying to More unearned luck:
avatar
By FactChecker
12th Apr 2024 20:20

Fascinating ... I'd not previously encountered the concept of "voluntary restitution on equitable grounds", let alone been invited to partake.

Is this the mechanism via which Sir Keith may be able to make his recently promised over-payment to HMRC (my mind has gone blank as to the specifics)?
Or does 'restitution' only cover scenarios where there was an under-payment that, for various reasons, has become uncollectable?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By bernard michael
13th Apr 2024 09:38

What appears to be missing is that when she & her husband nominated her house to be the PPR,by definition his house wasn't the PPR and therefore subject to CGT for that period of ownership

Was this paid when that house was sold or have they both dodged tax???

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
DougScott
By Dougscott
13th Apr 2024 11:27

The husband sold his house about a year later I think but maybe the gain on his house was lower, we have no details. I think it is pretty likely that, however they structured it, no CGT is due. The electoral thing is another matter but not quite sure what the effect would be as they only lived about a mile apart.

I think using the term "dodged" is unfair or do you help your clients "dodge" tax?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Dougscott:
avatar
By bernard michael
13th Apr 2024 11:40

Dougscott wrote:

The husband sold his house about a year later I think but maybe the gain on his house was lower, we have no details. I think it is pretty likely that, however they structured it, no CGT is due. The electoral thing is another matter but not quite sure what the effect would be as they only lived about a mile apart.

I think using the term "dodged" is unfair or do you help your clients "dodge" tax?


Sorry - that's Labour speak when attacking any Tory tax affairs

I wonder which MDTP gave her the wise counsel - he could be in for a Knighthood

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
13th Apr 2024 13:56

This is my money James Daly, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative party is wasting. Frankly the Conservative Party ought to be asked to front all the costs involved, no wonder the budget is in such a sorry mess when they ask to waste police time on ******* nonsense.

Thanks (2)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Michael Davies
15th Apr 2024 10:44

I queried police involvement last week on this Forum;it seems its because she may have committed a civil offence while in public office.Such are the ethics and morals of our elected MPs, across all parties;I really do feel like not turning up at the poll booth this Autumn.I believe I face sanctions if I deface my voting slip ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Michael Davies:
avatar
By More unearned luck
15th Apr 2024 12:30

If AR had wrongly omitted a cap gain from her tax return and if that omission was deliberate then that wrongdoing can't be misconduct in public office office because completion of her tax return (or the failure to notify chargeability) was done in her private capacity and not acting in her role of MP (the public office).

As for the alleged wrongdoing of entering the wrong address on her nomination form to be a parliamentary candidate, she couldn't, have course have been an MP at that time and thus not in public office.

So I agree with DJKL - the police are wasting their resources.

If civil tax offences by MPs were also crimes why isn't Nadhim Zahawi in jail?

The PM was given a civil penalty for his part in partygate, but thee has been no misconduct in public office investigation into him.

Thanks (0)
Replying to More unearned luck:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
15th Apr 2024 14:13

I understood the police involvement was nothing to do with tax and all to do with the election paperwork?

If that is so then IMHO let HMRC do what it wants re the tax using its powers as it sees fit re same .

Re the police involvement, having the wrong address on some election paperwork should rank re priority of police time well below investigating a house break in or similar, the Police should frankly tell the politicians (all of them , not just Conservatives) to stop trying to use the police for party political purposes or alternatively they should pay for the police costs out of Party funds (think they are all strapped).

Thanks (0)