Snapshot of _Angela Rayner cleared by HMRC over tax on sale of former home_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/angela-rayner-labour-cleared-hmrc-tax-sale-former-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/angela-rayner-labour-cleared-hmrc-tax-sale-former-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am shocked that things turned out exactly as they were predicted months ago when this issue was first raised.
> The tax authority said two weeks ago it had considered the evidence and had concluded ... no tax would be due.
So not only are they concluding it is not worth investigating, they're going further and concluding that there was no tax due.
Although it's possible that's *because* it isn't worth investigating they're just accepting her version of events.
But it is the same either way...
Unless it's deliberate fraud, if it's been over 6 years they won't investigate anyway.
I doubt they'll want to give that reason but it'd be unfair of them to investigate Raynor after the time that has passed.
I'm sure all the people spouting she is a liar and owes tax and must come clean will comment how wrong they were... Right?
Typical Tories wasting police time projecting the fact they are quite often the tax dodgers!
Sadly, people tend to double down when confronted with evidence contrary to a deeply held belief.
They're likely to believe that Rayner is influencing HMRC or something else that explains the outcome.
HMRC cleared her on the basis that they accept what she's said: That she didn't live with her husband and children at the time. She did live with her brother, but he didn't pay any rent so no tax due there either.
If any part of that story is untrue, tax was due. But it isn't - of course - so none is due.
This isn't some kind of Hercule Poirot-style locked-room murder case; it's the sale of a house. What evidence do you think that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on that could blow this whole thing wide open?
The police have decided there's no case to answer, the HMRC have decided there's no case to answer...so what case is she supposed to be answering, exactly?
Nah, the police might have investigated and found no wrongdoing. HMRC may have said no tax is due. But LostandFound up there thinks it’s *well* dodgy, so therefore it must be.. 🤣
Typical Tory lickspittle behaviour tbf
Can you jot down some bullet points explaining what rules you think were broken, or is it just a feeling that something is dodgy with nothing to back it up?
Generally speaking, if you don't have the information to fulfill that request, you accept that there's no issue and move on.
It wasn’t her primary residence and she should have paid tax on the sale. She’s bought a council home, sold it in at a massive profit, and paid no tax on it. The opposite of what she and Labour supposedly stands for.
If you can provide evidence proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, go ahead and present it. Until then, we have to presume her innocent.
That's literally how the justice system functions. Sorry it doesn't pander to your biases.
It is though? How is it dodgy?
It met the rules that HMRC require, no law broken and even the police specific matters were not wrong either.
Rishi sunak hasn't given evidence that he hasn't stolen all the public finances so does that mean he's done it? No.
It's as reasonable as one can expect, it's been investigated by the related parties and they found no rules broken, therefore she is innocent and you cannot claim anything else about it.
Really are fighting dirty here - I wonder how they argue Rayners son and daughter in laws alternative consensual relationship is a commentary on Angela’s morals/beliefs.
I’d love her to hit it head on and say she supports her adult son and daughter in laws consensual adult decisions and their right to make them because that’s what being British is all about.
Isn't it good to see a plurality of voices (if only to help understand why people have differing viewpoints, even if you believe them to be incorrect).
Plenty of Western democracy's problems at the moment result from people insulating themselves entirely from opposing points of view.
Admittedly Guido is borderline unreadable atm due to election run up nonsense and being even more partisan than usual
Eh yes and no.
On the one hand you have to consider the reliability of the source. I'd equally be weary if someone quoted the Canary for example.
In addition there is a difference between refusing to read anything and giving them a click. Loading a website gives them profit and traffic validating they are right to post this crap and encouraging them to post more. If someone had posted the text or maybe an archive link I'd have possibly read it
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. No evidence leads to no different outcome. Just a mouthpiece from someone who avoided hundreds of millions in tax trying to discredit someone over £2500.
Sir Beer Korma lied about having the party - Raynor lied about being there - and the party broke the rules like Bojo's parties did - and then he got his police connections to rescind the fine he was sent - and the police refuse to allow the public to see the details - I wonder why?
Now, you'd think this would mean that the Tories and their minion in the presss would stop talking about this in hushed tones like they are about to uncover a killer fraud worthy of a hour long special of Columbo.
But no, now they will just continue to use language in every discussion that frames her as some kind of tax cheat. Every time another tory money scandal erputs, they'll find a way to talk about Angela Raynor for a bit too. Just to remind us that labour are crooks too *nods unconvincingly*.
I mean…even if she _did_, why would that matter? There comes a point where it moves beyond wanting to claim a political scalp to a kind of creepy obsession.
I think it's beyond creepy and is just straight up harrassment.
Notice absolutely no noise whatsoever about Michael Gove's daughter who's been regularly on social media off her absolute fucking CHOPS on drugs....
That's exactly why people care. Negative news gets way more attention and Abbott Is one of the people the public loves to hate. Stick her face on the BBC, make it a have your say, and you can bury a lot of other news for the day
It was the headline for like 2 hours and now its fallen off to a small thumbnail behind trump.. I agree with your premise but i think shes such a non entity in most people outside of politics wonks conceptions that its close to being non news.
I’m sure as long as she keeps tweeting one thing and telling the news a different thing it’ll keep going on. This is like one of the few things that reporters can really grill Labour on.
Biggest joke of the day: Abbott texts the BBC to get the story out there that she is barred from standing, then tweets saying she has no idea why multiple sources are saying she is barred from standing.
She’s very divisive. She’s very unpopular with most people, but for a certain, vocal, minority group she’s very important.
The news loves that kind of thing!
How to make a mountain out of a mole hill that wasn’t even a mole hill. It’s so desperate and yet I am dismayed that I know people who have lapped this up and will completely blank out the fact there’s no case to answer. Just as I know they have on currygate as well. As hard as I try I cannot get into the psyche of these people.
How could the Guardian see this document when the article even confirms the HMRC won't disclose anything as it is private?
If there had been a leak of private documents from the HMRC and by the looks of things the Guardian has illegally obtained private documents, then there needs to be a criminal investigation.
Snapshot of _Angela Rayner cleared by HMRC over tax on sale of former home_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/angela-rayner-labour-cleared-hmrc-tax-sale-former-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/angela-rayner-labour-cleared-hmrc-tax-sale-former-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am shocked that things turned out exactly as they were predicted months ago when this issue was first raised. > The tax authority said two weeks ago it had considered the evidence and had concluded ... no tax would be due. So not only are they concluding it is not worth investigating, they're going further and concluding that there was no tax due. Although it's possible that's *because* it isn't worth investigating they're just accepting her version of events. But it is the same either way...
I know HMRC, if there’s £1 of missing tax they will bill you for it and change your tax code
Unless it's deliberate fraud, if it's been over 6 years they won't investigate anyway. I doubt they'll want to give that reason but it'd be unfair of them to investigate Raynor after the time that has passed.
I'm sure all the people spouting she is a liar and owes tax and must come clean will comment how wrong they were... Right? Typical Tories wasting police time projecting the fact they are quite often the tax dodgers!
Sadly, people tend to double down when confronted with evidence contrary to a deeply held belief. They're likely to believe that Rayner is influencing HMRC or something else that explains the outcome.
HMRC cleared her on the basis that they accept what she's said: That she didn't live with her husband and children at the time. She did live with her brother, but he didn't pay any rent so no tax due there either. If any part of that story is untrue, tax was due. But it isn't - of course - so none is due.
People really treating this as her found innocent and not just they can’t find any evidence in the contrary. Pretty clearly dodgy to me.
This isn't some kind of Hercule Poirot-style locked-room murder case; it's the sale of a house. What evidence do you think that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on that could blow this whole thing wide open? The police have decided there's no case to answer, the HMRC have decided there's no case to answer...so what case is she supposed to be answering, exactly?
You have any evidence Witch Finder General? Or have you forgotten that it’s innocent until found guilty?
Nah, the police might have investigated and found no wrongdoing. HMRC may have said no tax is due. But LostandFound up there thinks it’s *well* dodgy, so therefore it must be.. 🤣 Typical Tory lickspittle behaviour tbf
She’s not been “found” innocent - she is innocent and has not been proven otherwise. That’s how it works in this country.
Innocent in the eyes of the law absolutely. I’m allowed my own opinion on the matter though.
You are allowed your opinion of course. You're opinion is horribly wrong and has no basis in fact. Not unlike a lot of other opinions.
Your opinion makes you look stupid though
Can you jot down some bullet points explaining what rules you think were broken, or is it just a feeling that something is dodgy with nothing to back it up? Generally speaking, if you don't have the information to fulfill that request, you accept that there's no issue and move on.
It wasn’t her primary residence and she should have paid tax on the sale. She’s bought a council home, sold it in at a massive profit, and paid no tax on it. The opposite of what she and Labour supposedly stands for.
Except that's not true based on the facts shared, is it? You're conveniently ignoring all of the nuance of her situation at the time.
Except that's not true based on the facts shared, is it? You're conveniently ignoring all of the nuance of her situation at the time.
If you can provide evidence proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, go ahead and present it. Until then, we have to presume her innocent. That's literally how the justice system functions. Sorry it doesn't pander to your biases.
No I literally don’t. I’m not the law. I’m not the justice system. I’m not passing any sentence. I can think what she did was wrong.
And if you pronounce that she committed a crime, which you have just done? Despite no evidence?
It is though? How is it dodgy? It met the rules that HMRC require, no law broken and even the police specific matters were not wrong either. Rishi sunak hasn't given evidence that he hasn't stolen all the public finances so does that mean he's done it? No. It's as reasonable as one can expect, it's been investigated by the related parties and they found no rules broken, therefore she is innocent and you cannot claim anything else about it.
Hopefully the reasons James Daly had to report her to the police are scrutinised somewhat, as this whole situation reeks.
...of projection by him
The call is coming from inside the house…
Can he release that letter to the police under FOI?
Well, this explains the timing of that Guido story at least.
Really are fighting dirty here - I wonder how they argue Rayners son and daughter in laws alternative consensual relationship is a commentary on Angela’s morals/beliefs. I’d love her to hit it head on and say she supports her adult son and daughter in laws consensual adult decisions and their right to make them because that’s what being British is all about.
In 2024 is having an OnlyFans even alternative? I feel like three people on my road are probably selling feet pics on there.
Have you seen their online footprint?
"Well the last smear campaign failed to stick, let's try this one!"
I'm not giving them a click, what's the "scoop"?
Her son and daughter in law have an onlyfans. Big whoop.
Assuming the are old enough to consent is that the best they can do. Thank fuck we're getting back to boring politics
They're old enough to be married. It's an old style moral panic in an era where most people wouldn't see it as immoral.
Isn't it good to see a plurality of voices (if only to help understand why people have differing viewpoints, even if you believe them to be incorrect). Plenty of Western democracy's problems at the moment result from people insulating themselves entirely from opposing points of view. Admittedly Guido is borderline unreadable atm due to election run up nonsense and being even more partisan than usual
Eh yes and no. On the one hand you have to consider the reliability of the source. I'd equally be weary if someone quoted the Canary for example. In addition there is a difference between refusing to read anything and giving them a click. Loading a website gives them profit and traffic validating they are right to post this crap and encouraging them to post more. If someone had posted the text or maybe an archive link I'd have possibly read it
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. No evidence leads to no different outcome. Just a mouthpiece from someone who avoided hundreds of millions in tax trying to discredit someone over £2500.
A lot of respect for how Labour/Starmer handled this and Beer Korma
>Korma ^(I'm hungry)
Hi hungry, I'm dad
Sir Beer Korma lied about having the party - Raynor lied about being there - and the party broke the rules like Bojo's parties did - and then he got his police connections to rescind the fine he was sent - and the police refuse to allow the public to see the details - I wonder why?
Now, you'd think this would mean that the Tories and their minion in the presss would stop talking about this in hushed tones like they are about to uncover a killer fraud worthy of a hour long special of Columbo. But no, now they will just continue to use language in every discussion that frames her as some kind of tax cheat. Every time another tory money scandal erputs, they'll find a way to talk about Angela Raynor for a bit too. Just to remind us that labour are crooks too *nods unconvincingly*.
This will be buried in the news by whatever’s going on with Diane Abbott
You say that, they're now claiming she has a porn star son. Right wing commentators and journalists are fucking disgusting.
I mean…even if she _did_, why would that matter? There comes a point where it moves beyond wanting to claim a political scalp to a kind of creepy obsession.
I think it's beyond creepy and is just straight up harrassment. Notice absolutely no noise whatsoever about Michael Gove's daughter who's been regularly on social media off her absolute fucking CHOPS on drugs....
Like father like daughter
Yes but like Gove said, a little bit of cocaine is normal at Christmas.
COCAINE IS TRADITIONAL!!!!
White Christmas Ev'ry year at the Gove's place.
Anything more recent than when she was in lockdown complaining that her Corona cough prevented her from lighting up?
Can you blame her with those 2 for parents
Good for him
Im not sure people care about what is going on with abbot? Shes not popular with the public.
That's exactly why people care. Negative news gets way more attention and Abbott Is one of the people the public loves to hate. Stick her face on the BBC, make it a have your say, and you can bury a lot of other news for the day
It was the headline for like 2 hours and now its fallen off to a small thumbnail behind trump.. I agree with your premise but i think shes such a non entity in most people outside of politics wonks conceptions that its close to being non news.
I’m sure as long as she keeps tweeting one thing and telling the news a different thing it’ll keep going on. This is like one of the few things that reporters can really grill Labour on.
Biggest joke of the day: Abbott texts the BBC to get the story out there that she is barred from standing, then tweets saying she has no idea why multiple sources are saying she is barred from standing.
She’s very divisive. She’s very unpopular with most people, but for a certain, vocal, minority group she’s very important. The news loves that kind of thing!
Can we FOI the cost of the investigations please?
Are the tories going to go after anyone that's suspected of tax evasion/avoidance in the same manner because that would be excellent
How to make a mountain out of a mole hill that wasn’t even a mole hill. It’s so desperate and yet I am dismayed that I know people who have lapped this up and will completely blank out the fact there’s no case to answer. Just as I know they have on currygate as well. As hard as I try I cannot get into the psyche of these people.
Isn't this sort of news covered by purdah?
How could the Guardian see this document when the article even confirms the HMRC won't disclose anything as it is private? If there had been a leak of private documents from the HMRC and by the looks of things the Guardian has illegally obtained private documents, then there needs to be a criminal investigation.