It Just Ain't Going Away Is It.......?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/fresh-headache-for-labour-as-questions-grow-over-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-13109859

 

[New Judge]

"My confusion arises as to whether it has to have been the main residence throughout the ownership or only part of the period of ownership."

It's not quite that simple, dave. HMRS guidance of Ms Rayner's circumstances says this:

"You can nominate which residence is to be treated as your main residence for any period. Your nomination must be made within 2 years of the date you first have a particular combination of residences. If there’s a change in your combination of residences, a new 2-year period begins. If you do not make a nomination, the question of which is your main residence will be determined on the facts.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership and you’re not separated from your spouse or civil partner, you can have only one main residence between you. If, when you married or registered as civil partners, you each owned a residence and you’ve continued to use both residences, you can nominate jointly which is to be the main residence, and the 2-year period for doing so begins on the date of marriage or registration as civil partners."

If a nominattion has been made, there is no "test" to ensure that the nominated residence is being used as tthe main residence. But if no nomination was made (as I believe there was not in Ms Rayner's case) then a dtermination is made "on the facts." But the decision seems not subject to any hard and fast rules. Any one thing (such as electoral registration, children's schools etc., proportion of time occupied) are not considered in isolation, but rather each case is considered on its merits.l

 

 

 

Only for part, dave. An individual or married couple can nominate which of their premises is their main residence.

[Peter Pedant]

Thx - that is useful - I was under the impression that if  you didnt nominate, then both houses were subject to CGT

[youngmafbog]

Surely the easy way out is for her to make a payment to say the homeless for the amount disputed.  That way she could claim the moral high ground of "I dont believe I owe HMRC anything but as it is a relatively small amount I am more than willing to help the misfortunate as a gesture of goodwill".

Job done.

[Peter Pedant]

Surely the easy way out is for her to make a payment to say the homeless for the amount disputed.

will founder the quite good comment "I have done nothing wrong" - and it is a matter of principle etc

[smurfchops]

I cannot stand that woman.  There is something wrong with her jowls and lower lip.  Yuk.

[Peter Pedant]

I had a terrible dream - actually a post on another thread - that said this thread had been zapped

That CANNOT be true etc - and I see it isnt

[New Judge]

Interestingly I note today that her husband also sold his ex-council house in 2015. I don't know the dates of these sales, but  I wonder if the couple are claiming that the first of these to be sold was their principle residence, and that claim switched to the other property when the first had been sold.  

[Togo]

It Just Ain't Going Away Is It.......?

Indeed not. It is getting more "entertaining" though.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/panicking-angela-rayner-forced-to-run-out-back-of-pub-after-event-hijacked-by-tax-protest/ar-BB1loqnE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=597e914b353e489f83f7acb6ff06e568&ei=57