None of them in the Labour party are genuine socialists. It's just an act to get the plebs to vote for them.

I think if people don't like Rayner or Labour they'll probably never be satisfied whatever she or the police say. There'll always be a way to dig out something and claim it means this, that or the other. There's no value for her in playing their game.

I just don't think there'd be a point where the people frothing about this now would see evidence and say "fair enough, we got it wrong. Let's let it go so she can do something else".

yeah, but that's why the vast majority of cases like this see the perp do nothing to perpetuate it. The news cycle quickly moves on and it'll soon be forgotten.

You're demanding she do something you're not prepared to do yourself nor Rishi or Hunt.

what you're really upset about is they spent £100,000's on private eyes and researchers and all they could dig up was a single discrepancy on a child's birth certificate.

She's either very clever & meticulous, or she's clean as a whistle, either way it's not something you can say about many MP's.

Rishi's lucky it's not her at PMQ, coz she absolutely destroys the tories when it's deputy-PMQ. (and ofcourse Rishi is absent for deputy-PMQ)

It is quite amusing brentford to see all of the Tory haters demanding concrete evidence when someone from their 'side' is under the spotlight. Multiple examples of this in the recent past, Sturgeon, the BBC bloke, now Rayner. Tories are hung drawn and quartered immediately as soon as any allegation crops up. Some rumours that Pincher got drunk and touched someone up, I don't recall these types stating that conclusions can't be drawn, we need to see all of the actual evidence to prove it happened

People know what I think of the Tories atm, however there is clearly an ideological difference here. People on the individual responsibility argument would not typically demand to see the personal affairs of another person. I feel like the proverbial phrase that applies here is 'hoist with his own petard', or hers in the case. After years of calling out political opposition for capitalism and not disclosing their tax affairs when being challenged, when given the chance to show that she walks the walk she chooses instead to hide behind privacy. Funny that.

Interesting (to me anyway) that she offered to give full information to HMRC if required.

She should have already done this years ago when filing her tax return for the year the ex council house was sold.

Why would she be offering to disclose this information to HMRC now ?  Could this be because it wasn't disclosed back then ?

Insurance as well, which is not straight forward for a long term unoccupied property.

This thread and the ongoing rage of Cider, Johnny, etc shows just how effective Rayner is in getting up the noses of the Tory Boys.

Typical of Labour voters - if she has been guilty of
tax evasion ( it’s unclear but shouldn’t be difficult to clarify ) then
she shouldn’t be so critical of others .. that will be the tories
She was shifty re beergate also .. has she paid her taxes or not ?

Ms Rayner doesn’t seem to understand .. if she has evaded tax
the British public have a right to know , no point throwing up dust

Cider - You can't deduct any of the day to day running costs/repairs of the empty property  from the basic capital gain of £48,500 - so you can ignore those.

She can deduct legal fees on purchase and sale (solicitors / estate agent) and the costs of any CAPITAL improvements - extensions etc , but there has been no mention of these. She would get an annual CGT allowance of 11k or whatever it was back then.

You do get exemptions for periods you live in the property as your home - she lived there for 3 years I understand , so a 3/8 deduction for that , but to reduce the tax to nil , she she must have continued to claim that she was living there after apparently moving out.

Oh and a married couple can't have two tax free homes, regardless of who lives where , or claims they do. - She got married in 2010 the house was apparently not occupied by herself again until its sale in 2015.

(If a couple each own a home when they marry they have two years to elect which of the two properties will be their tax exempt property - If no election is made , then the tax free home will be the one where the facts indicate they actually reside for the majority of the time - the other property become chargeable to capital gains tax)

How has she not paid any capital gains tax on her profit of £48,500 ?

It's so simple - Why does she not want to say " I didn't owe any tax , because I continued to claim it as my principal private residence until xx/xx/xx - my advisors said I could do this ".

Because that open her up to the follow up - "But Angela - it appears from facts that we have obtained that you weren't actually living there - How can you claim that you were when nobody saw you there for years ? "

If we set aside the husbands council house
If she was living at times there , and also in London working most of the time
And her own council house was not lived in ,, it could still be classed as her principal home ?
That would not seem unreasonable

Because it would be the only house she owned personally

Yes, I had gathered she was relying on primary residence exclusion. Therefore costs would have eaten into any 'profit'. I find it difficult to believe it was a deliberate tactic from the outset, as the net gain is marginal on such a modest property.

More likely undeclared material circumstantial changes. It's not the only area where a variable is dependent upon people being treated as a household (or not).

To reduce the taxable gain to below the annual exemption (and a nil tax owed position) she must have claimed (or is claiming now) private residence exemption after 2010 when she got married and apparently started living with her husband in his property.

The property was eventually sold in 2015.