2 years ago | 9 comments
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has cleared Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner of not paying capital gains tax (CGT) when selling her council house.
According to The Guardian, which claims to have seen HMRC documents, the tax body has decided that Ms Rayner’s home in Stockport was her main home throughout her period of ownership, exempting her from the tax.
The Ashton-under-Lyne MP had been accused of potentially violating electoral law and evading both capital gains and council taxes following the sale of her Right-to-Buy former council house in 2015.
She made a £48,500 profit.
However, allegations surfaced suggesting that a CGT bill was due, and Ms Rayner says the Vicarage Road property was her ‘principal property’ – despite her former spouse living in Lowndes Lane.
HMRC’s decision follows an announcement this week from Greater Manchester Police that it would not pursue further action.
The police also clarified that tax-related issues were beyond its jurisdiction, although it did pass on details to both HMRC and Stockport Council – which has also decided not to pursue the matter further.
While HMRC does not discuss individual tax matters publicly, The Guardian says it has seen a document that states ‘no capital gains tax is due’ for Vicarage Road property.
The document acknowledges the information provided by Ms Rayner and her ex-spouse Mark, corroborating the residence as her primary home and suggesting closure of the case.
However, the decision by GMP has annoyed Ms Rayner’s former neighbours, including 83-year-old Sylvia Hampson, who told the Daily Mail that the MP lived with her then-husband next door on Lowndes Lane for several years.
A Labour spokesperson confirmed the completion of the police inquiry and said: “Angela has always been clear that she was not liable for capital gains tax on the sale of the home she owned before she was an MP, that she was properly registered to vote, and paid the appropriate council tax. She took expert tax and legal advice which confirms this.
“This draws a line under the matter.”
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Sadiq Khan slams failure to pass Renters (Reform) BillNext Article
How do I enforce a CCJ?
2 years ago | 9 comments
2 years ago | 27 comments
2 years ago | 21 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
11:54 AM, 31st May 2024, About 2 years ago
‘The police also clarified that tax-related issues were beyond its jurisdiction, although it did pass on details to both HMRC and Stockport Council – which has also decided not to pursue the matter further.’
Why hasn’t the matter been referredto the National Crime Agency to which money laundering concerns are made, fraudulently derived advantage IS money laundering.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
12:42 PM, 31st May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 31/05/2024 – 11:54
I think what a lot of people following this story have failed to appreciate is the difference between criminality for which you have the chance of a prosecution, criminality where the CPS and the police have absolutely no chance of a successful prosecution, and something that is not criminal but just a matter of hypocrisy.
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1435 - Articles: 1
2:31 PM, 31st May 2024, About 2 years ago
What a shame
Member Since October 2017 - Comments: 101
4:16 PM, 31st May 2024, About 2 years ago
So, can all married couples now have two PPRs or is that just politicians?
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
12:10 PM, 3rd June 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Cathie at 31/05/2024 – 16:16
She did this when she wasn’t a politician. And that makes her no better or worse than anybody else.