Ymx wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2024 4:34 pm
_Os_ wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2024 11:33 am
Ymx wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2024 11:14 am
This part is completely false
“it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time,
only that you have lived there”
That is absolutely not true at all. It’s not satisfactory to only have lived there. It was a very dishonest post
It wasn't dishonest, it was a one liner from someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who uses Google trying to dispute it and failing.
The key test is quality of the time spent in a residence, not the quantity of time. Difficult to claim a property was once your main residence if it had no water/gas/electricity during the period you claimed to have lived there (because you were actually renovating it before putting it into rent for example). Any HMRC case is about this first because it's the easiest to prove/disprove.
Rayner indisputably did live in the property. It's not the case that she never lived there.
Which then leaves you with the much weaker quantity of time argument. You've helpfully posted the HMRC rules, you could not be living in a dwelling for years and it can still be your main residence. Her time was divided between her place of work (any time spent away from the main residence working, elected to parliament after selling the house so probably not much, she was a union rep at the time), her house and her partners house (a less than 10 minute journey between them). Accounting for all of Rayner's movements between 2010-2015 likely isn't possible.
This isn't unusual. Someone who has been unlucky with members of the opposite sex will typically keep their assets separate from any new partner, even after marrying them, for quite some time until they're sure they're not going to get burned again.
God you trot out some bollocks.
“It wasn't dishonest, it was a one liner from someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who uses Google trying to dispute it and failing.”
It was a false statement saying they only need to declare it, and not live there. And it is in fact not that at all. There’s pretty specific laws here, as you now admit to. She would have needed to be living there beyond 2012.
And you have now reverted to, they can’t prove it.
Fuck me "only need to declare it, and not live there", is literally how it works. She needs to have occupied it at some point and have nominated it. If you don't believe me, this is Neidle the go to tax guy in the media:
And you're wrong about needing to be living there beyond 2012, read the HMRC quote you posted again "any reason for periods
adding up to 3 years". Remember when I asked you about someone who divided their time between a flat in London and a house outside of London? If she had a bed/clothes/etc in her house, in addition to the bills going there, and roads both houses are on are under 10 minutes apart (as they are) it becomes difficult to prove anything.
But lets go down a different rabbit hole and assume she didn't declare the house she owned as her main residence (isn't tax fun). She wouldn't be liable for the period it was her only residence, nor would she be liable for the last 18 months (sold between 6 April 2014 and 6 April 2020), any improvement she made can also be deducted, as can the transaction fees. Of the 8 years she owned the property four and half are not liable for CGT plus whatever improvements and fees are deducted. What people then miss (including Neidle) is the individual annual CGT allowance was £11,100 in 2015/16, but she was married and in this scenario would have her husband's house as her main residence, it's possible the tax for that year was done by people who know what they're doing and the annual CGT allowance of both spouses was combined as spouses living together can transfer assets between them without CGT liability (effectively giving an allowance of £22,200). Maybe the experts haven't gone down this rabbit hole because of Rayner's own explanations but that assumes she did the tax herself and is on top of it herself. Combing both spouses CGT allowances would eliminate any remaining profit being CGT liable.
There's two scenarios I know of where Rayner pays no CGT. One where she has nominated the house she owned as her main residence (the scenario she has indicated is the case), and one where she's living with her spouse in his house. The UK tax code is something insane like 20k pages long, many times the combined length of the Bible and Shakespeare's complete works. Lots of rabbit holes to dive down. Social media posts indicating she lived in another house some of the time isn't an open and shut case at all. Rayner has said she has received expert tax advice and that there's no CGT to pay and is happy to provide documentation to the police and HMRC.