Angela Rayner

I doubt those stories make it to your local newspaper in France.
Did you and transam vote Brexit, and are now obsessed with France?
You are both making comments that defy explanation or understanding.
 
Sponsored Links
The property was subject to capital gains tax when she sold it. Her argument that it was her "home" is evidence that she did not get proper advice or did not give enough information for her expert to advise her.
You have no idea what her argument was at the time, And you have no idea what the advice that she received was.
You're guessing in desperation.

She might have declared her house as the primary residence for them both. And her ex-husband would pay CGT on his house when he sells, except that they are now seperated.
Dan Neidle, a tax expert, said: “Mark and Angela either nominated her property as their joint main residence so he (Mark) had tax to pay and she didn’t. Or a lot of building work was done on her property.
 
It’s quite obvious who you are and where you are.
It's obvious to devout religious nutters that God exists.
Believing is seeing.
You'll convince yourself of whatever delusions you prefer.

I wouldn't have seen your welcome to the other newcomers that you mentioned.
Did your phobia loom large?
You could seek some help to deal with your phobia.
 
Sponsored Links
It's obvious to devout religious nutters that God exists.
Believing is seeing.
You'll convince yourself of whatever delusions you prefer.

I wouldn't have seen your welcome to the other newcomers that you mentioned.
Did your phobia loom large?
You could seek some help to deal with your phobia.
You’ll just disappear in a puff of smoke one day like all your other incarnations. Mark my word.
 
nevermind about Angela Raynor, theres something more interesting in town:

John Curtice says: "theres a 99% chance Labour will form the next government"

note: personally I dont agree with calculating seat number percentages from polls

Curtice is scrupulously accurate and impartial, so it looks curtains for the toreys.
 
So, here is another example of what we were discussing on the other thead. Although I like Angela Rayner, and do not want to see this issue damage the Labour party's chances in the upcoming election, I am posting the following factual information to help further inform the debate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...d-spouses-2022#what-counts-as-living-together
Living together in the guidance includes permanent separation, if she never lived with him in the first place that would apply, unless there is a presumption that married couples live together. But that would discriminate against people's freedom to make their own marriage arrangements.
 
That's no squirrel, it's Mottie trying to keep the thread on topic. :ROFLMAO:
Let me remind you of your first post in this thread on Angela Raynor.

Dog whistle politics.
It shows how the political landscape in UK (and probably other countries) has deteriorated since the advent of social media.

Dog whistle politics has always been available via the established media. But now the opportunities to bang on about an issue, however minor, and to add colour, and raise awareness, whether warranted or not, are easily available via social media.
The original story was raised by Lord Ashcroft, an ex-Tory Dep' Chairman.
Lord Ashcroft is a resident of Belize, where ha has not paid tax for 30 years, by his own admission. As a resident of Belize he was mostly exempt from tax in UK.
During his post with the Tory party, he said he would register for tax in UK. He never did.

Look, there's a squirrel.
 
Living together in the guidance includes permanent separation, if she never lived with him in the first place that would apply, unless there is a presumption that married couples live together. But that would discriminate against people's freedom to make their own marriage arrangements.

I think, even if that were the case, they would be caught by the following part. It would be very hard to argue that they got married and the marriage immediately broke down. Also, there has never been a suggestion that the marriage had actually broken down. Indeed, AR says that, in 2015, they fully moved in together after she sold her house.

If the marriage or civil partnership has not broken down but the 2 of you do not live in the same house, you’re still treated as living together for Capital Gains Tax purposes.
 
I think, even if that were the case, they would be caught by the following part. It would be very hard to argue that they got married and the marriage immediately broke down. Also, there has never been a suggestion that the marriage had actually broken down. Indeed, AR says that, in 2015, they fully moved in together after she sold her house.
This is a slow burn for AR, starmy will doubtless wield the axe if or when it becomes necessary.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top