Has Hazel Blears committed a criminal offence?
Robert Henderson
Note: If she has made different declarations to the Revenue and the
expenses Commons office, she has either made a false return on to the
Inland Revenue (a criminal offence plus the general criminal offence of
fraud or a false return to the Commons office which deals with MPs
"expenses" (the general criminal offence of fraud).
daily telegraph
Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, facing fresh questions over
flat sale in row over MPs' expenses
Hazel Blears is facing fresh questions over the tax arrangements
surrounding the sale of a flat in South London she had designated as a
"second home'.
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 9:35AM BST 10 May 2009
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears
Photo: GETTY Miss Blears sold the property in Kennington, south London,
in August 2004 for �200,000, making a profit of �45,000. She admitted
last night that she did not pay capital gains tax (CGT) on the profit
from the sale because "no liability" had arisen. The admission suggested
that Miss Blears declared the flat as her primary residence for tax
purposes while at the same time telling the Commons authorities that it
was her second home, a designation that enabled her to claim hundreds of
pounds in parliamentary expenses.
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Gaz
> Note: If she has made different declarations to the Revenue and the
> expenses Commons office, she has either made a false return on to the
> Inland Revenue (a criminal offence plus the general criminal offence
> of fraud or a false return to the Commons office which deals with MPs
> "expenses" (the general criminal offence of fraud).
HMRC seem unusually reluctant to get involved. This kind of behaviour, on
such a scale cannot have carried on without the connivance of the HMRC.
Gaz
johnmids2006
wrote:
I thought that if you have two private homes at the same time, and
occupy both, that you can choose which to claim the CGT exemption on,
and it doesn't matter which of them you spend most time at.
Logician
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
You can nail them for not having Waste Transfer Notes on the work they
had done.
The law requires all work done be recorded via a Waste Transfer Note,
eg plumbing, painting. Otherwise, the offender (householder) can be
prosecuted. The notes have to be kept for two years and they have to
detail all the waste, have a license number for the carrier, and show
where the waste was tipped.
You think MP's getting work done on their countless homes had waste
transfer notes?
BartC
That sounds like an unlikely loophole. Someone could have a hundred
properties and choose to be resident in whichever one he's selling that
week.
I think any period of non-residence affects the CGT when selling. You can
only be resident in one house at a time.
--
Bart
Stuart B
Guy from Grant Thornton was on the News on BBC yesterday and said
excatly that .so long as you live in each house you can nominate which
one id your main residence and therefore exempt from CGT if sold .
I might have picked him up wrong but I also thought he said you could
switch the option around . Also having one main home for HMRC and
another for the Commons did not seem to be a problem he said .
--------------
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail
Stuart B
Waste Transfer Notes ...???..never heard of them !!! What Law do you
speak of ?
Peter Constantine
> You can nail them for not having Waste Transfer Notes on the work they
> had done.
>
> The law requires all work done be recorded via a Waste Transfer Note,
> eg plumbing, painting. Otherwise, the offender (householder) can be
> prosecuted. The notes have to be kept for two years and they have to
> detail all the waste, have a license number for the carrier, and show
> where the waste was tipped.
This simply does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
In England and Wales, householders only have a duty to take reasonable
measures to ensure that waste produced on the property is transferred to
an authorised person or carrier. This would include any legitimate skip
hire business or a local council refuse service.
The law does not require domestic householders to use Waste Transfer
Notes.
x
IANAL, YMMV etc.
Robert Henderson
<afd8008a-d6fe-435b...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
johnmids2006 <jmr1...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>I thought that if you have two private homes at the same time, and
>occupy both, that you can choose which to claim the CGT exemption on,
>and it doesn't matter which of them you spend most time at.
That is not the problem. It is the telling of two different tales to two
different authorities. RH
--
Robert Henderson
grabber
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TmjVHwx5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message
> <afd8008a-d6fe-435b...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> johnmids2006 <jmr1...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>I thought that if you have two private homes at the same time, and occupy
>>both, that you can choose which to claim the CGT exemption on, and it
>>doesn't matter which of them you spend most time at.
>
>
> That is not the problem. It is the telling of two different tales to two
> different authorities. RH
Only if the two authorities are using the same definition of "second home".
And if HMRC's definition is "whichever suits you", there seems to be little
mileage in this.
Alex Heney
he has a recurring fantasy that one of the Environment Acts puts
ludicrous requirements on businesses that almost no business is likely
to comply with.
he now seems to be suggesting that householders could somehow be held
liable for a business who does work for them not complying with the
law he believes exists.
I haven't seen anybody else agreeing with him about the impact of the
laws he suggests, and he has never actually quoted the exact law(s) he
thinks have this effect.
Sometimes he has mentioned the title of a law, but never which
section(s).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Robert Henderson
writes
No. You can designate any property as main residence but you do have to
show to the Revenue that it is the property primarily used. Moreover, if
you alter the status of a property as a main residence when you have two
or more properties, the exemption from capital gains only applies for
the point where you nominate as a the main property. You can't just
switch when you like and take the exemption with you to cover all
periods. RH
> there seems to be little mileage in this.
--
William Black
"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:gubj78...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> Is it possible that the HMRC unit in Cardiff operate 'special
> rules' for MPs ...ones which WE don't know about? That is
> my suspicion.
>
I very much doubt it.
In the current climate someone would leak it.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
William Black
> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:gubj78...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>
>>> Is it possible that the HMRC unit in Cardiff operate 'special
>>> rules' for MPs ...ones which WE don't know about? That is
>>> my suspicion.
>
>
>>I very much doubt it.
>>
>>In the current climate someone would leak it.
>
> The principle reason for having a special HMRC unit would be to
> limit access to such tax records only to those who have received
> security clearance etc. That does not preclude leakage but makes
> it much less likely, especially if staff have to sign the OSA.
>
> I would bet that the rules operated there are modified from
> the normal tax rules. Whether it's for celebs too - I dunno.
>
> You have to understand that we do not live in a proper democracy
> and there are two sets of rules across society, whatever the law
> says. The de Menezes affair is absolute evidence of that. Plenty
> of other examples going back years.
>
I'm starting to think you're moving into 'tinfoil hat' territory here.
The idea that MPs have special tax rules is more than a little odd.
What makes you think some radical MP wouldn't blow the whistle on them?
Can you think of a reason someone like Tony Benn wouldn't?
He's rich, aristocratic and terrifyingly honest.
How do they shut someone like him up?
grabber
> In message <i8%Nl.84896$5J5....@newsfe29.ams2>, grabber <g...@bb.er>
> writes
>>
>>"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:TmjVHwx5...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message
>>> <afd8008a-d6fe-435b...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>>> johnmids2006 <jmr1...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>I thought that if you have two private homes at the same time, and
>>>>occupy both, that you can choose which to claim the CGT exemption on,
>>>>and it doesn't matter which of them you spend most time at.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not the problem. It is the telling of two different tales to two
>>> different authorities. RH
>>
>>Only if the two authorities are using the same definition of "second
>>home". And if HMRC's definition is "whichever suits you",
>
>
> No. You can designate any property as main residence but you do have to
> show to the Revenue that it is the property primarily used. Moreover, if
> you alter the status of a property as a main residence when you have two
> or more properties, the exemption from capital gains only applies for the
> point where you nominate as a the main property.
Nope. Either it's changed or you've forgotten.
See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm
where it states:
"If you own and live in more than one property you should tell your Tax
Office which one you want to nominate as your main home.
You have to make the nomination within two years of changing the number of
properties you live in. You must do this whether the number of properties
increases or decreases.
If you don't tell your Tax Office which property you want them to treat as
your main home, the decision as to which home was your main home will be
made on the facts. This may affect the amount of Capital Gains Tax you have
to pay.
Once you've nominated a main home you can tell your Tax Office at any time
that a different property is your main home. But you can't backdate the
change more than two years. "
The expert wheeled out on PM this evening said exactly the same.
.You can't just
R. Mark Clayton
If she purchased a replacement flat within six months then the CGT rolls
over.
Get an accountant to help you with your tax return - you will save money!
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kn1Dnxph...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
jinty....@gmx.co.uk
wrote:
>
> I'm starting to think you're moving into 'tinfoil hat' territory here.
>
> The idea that MPs have special tax rules is more than a little odd.
>
Any idea how much the cigarettes and alcohol cost in the Westminster
bars?
Here's a hint: they ain't subject to HMCE duties.........now what was
that about special tax rules for MPs?
jinty....@gmx.co.uk
wrote:
>
> Get an accountant to help you with your tax return - you will save money!
>
My father-in-law, a self-employed taxi driver in Cornwall, reckons his
acountant saves him in tax about three times the cost of employing
him!
There doesn't seem to be a loophole/perk that the guy doesn't know
about......
Alex Heney
Did you think there was anything in what you have posted which
contradicts what he said?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
One way to stop a run away horse is to bet on him.
grabber
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ijrj0511fah0lhhh7...@4ax.com...
No requirement to demonstrate anything about the nominated property. "The
facts" only relevant if no nomination made within the time limit. Changes
can be backdated by up to two years.
Robert Henderson
writes
>Nope. Either it's changed or you've forgotten.
>
>See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm
>
>where it states:
>
>"If you own and live in more than one property you should tell your Tax
>Office which one you want to nominate as your main home.
>
>You have to make the nomination within two years of changing the number
>of properties you live in. You must do this whether the number of
>properties increases or decreases.
>
>If you don't tell your Tax Office which property you want them to treat
>as your main home, the decision as to which home was your main home
>will be made on the facts. This may affect the amount of Capital Gains
>Tax you have to pay.
>
>Once you've nominated a main home you can tell your Tax Office at any
>time that a different property is your main home. But you can't
>backdate the change more than two years. "
>
>The expert wheeled out on PM this evening said exactly the same.
None of this contradicts what I have said, You nominate the property but
you have to justify it if called upon to do so by the Revenue and CGT
is still applicable on the period when a property was not designated as
your main home. RH
Robert Henderson
<spamtrap@?.here.com.invalid> writes
>'Robert Henderson' wrote thus:
>
>>No. You can designate any property as main residence but you do have to
>>show to the Revenue that it is the property primarily used. Moreover, if
>>you alter the status of a property as a main residence when you have two
>>or more properties, the exemption from capital gains only applies for
>>the point where you nominate as a the main property. You can't just
>>switch when you like and take the exemption with you to cover all
>>periods. RH
>
>my suspicion.
They do but they are known about, viz:
>
daily telegraph
daily telegraph
MPs could face income tax bills over expenses
MPs who milked the system of parliamentary allowances could be hit with
large income tax bills following The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures.
By James Kirkup and Robert Winnett
Last Updated: 9:11PM BST 10 May 2009
... The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, gave MPs a special
exemption from tax liabilities relating to their allowances. Section 292
of the Act states that no income tax liability arises from allowances
paid to MPs for “additional expenses necessarily incurred by the
Member in staying overnight away from the Member’s only or main
residence, for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties.”
... MPs’ tax returns are processed by a special HMRC unit in Cardiff,
which also deals with members of the Royal Family, celebrities, members
of the intelligence agencies and others whose affairs are considered to
require additional security. Insiders said that, until now, once an
expense claim had been approved by the Commons authorities, the Cardiff
unit did not question it any further...."
grabber
For anyone still interested, the Tuesday PM item I mentioned is now working
at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00k83ny :the relevant part starts
37 minutes in.
Robert Henderson
<spamtrap@?.here.com.invalid> writes
>
>Thanks.
>So the HMRC do apply special rules to MPs, spelt out in the final
>sentence, and it's still possible that other unofficial rules exist
>which we don't know about. They do not apply that rule to other people
>afaik, (except perhaps the other groups dealt with in Cardiff). My own
>expense claims were always subject to tax office review for many years.
>
>It now looks as though the special MP rules will be reviewed with the
>possibility of tax bills arriving, although personally I won't hold my
>breath.
The other great officially sanctioned fraud is for rich foreigners with
residence in Britain who come to an agreement with HMRC to pay a certain
amount of IT regardless of their income.
The non-domicile regs are also pretty lax even on the face of it and
may not be conscientiously enforced. RH
Gaz
And the absolute utter worst people to talk to for tax advice, is the HMRC,
its like asking a copper for legal advice.
Gaz
Robert Henderson
writes
>>>time that a different property is your main home. But you can't
>>>backdate the change more than two years. "
>>>
>>>The expert wheeled out on PM this evening said exactly the same.
>>
>>
>> None of this contradicts what I have said, You nominate the property
>>but you have to justify it if called upon to do so by the Revenue and
>>CGT is still applicable on the period when a property was not
>>designated as your main home. RH
>
>For anyone still interested, the Tuesday PM item I mentioned is now
>working at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00k83ny :the relevant
>part starts 37 minutes in.
You don't understand HMRC's general powers. They can investigate any
claim submitted to them if they have grounds for believing it to be
fraudulent.
. You might think that it would be a long shot to have a claim of main
residence investigated.. In fact, it is not that long. HMRC receives
vast numbers of complaints for the public (almost all anonymous)
informing on people who are alleged to have fiddled their tax. Something
like the false designation of a main residence is just the sort of thing
a disgruntled neighbour will inform about. RH
Robert Henderson
writes
You can't expect HMRC to guide you to the tax ,loopholes. RH
>
>Gaz
grabber
> In message <XVEOl.34685$hd4....@newsfe24.ams2>, grabber <g...@bb.er> writes
>>>>time that a different property is your main home. But you can't backdate
>>>>the change more than two years. "
>>>>
>>>>The expert wheeled out on PM this evening said exactly the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> None of this contradicts what I have said, You nominate the property but
>>> you have to justify it if called upon to do so by the Revenue and CGT is
>>> still applicable on the period when a property was not designated as
>>> your main home. RH
>>
>>For anyone still interested, the Tuesday PM item I mentioned is now
>>working at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00k83ny :the relevant
>>part starts 37 minutes in.
>
>
> You don't understand HMRC's general powers. They can investigate any claim
> submitted to them if they have grounds for believing it to be fraudulent.
There is no argument about what powers of investigation they have; merely
about what the rules are. It might help if you were to state which parts of
the PM item you consider to be incorrect or misleading.
Robert Henderson
writes
>>
>>
>> You don't understand HMRC's general powers. They can investigate any
>>claim submitted to them if they have grounds for believing it to be
>>fraudulent.
>
>There is no argument about what powers of investigation they have;
>merely about what the rules are. It might help if you were to state
>which parts of the PM item you consider to be incorrect or misleading.
Whatever was said on the PM programme is irrelevant because the HMRC
power to investigate is general. RH
grabber
> In message <GI%Ol.109235$IC1....@newsfe06.ams2>, grabber <g...@bb.er>
> writes
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't understand HMRC's general powers. They can investigate any
>>> claim submitted to them if they have grounds for believing it to be
>>> fraudulent.
>>
>>There is no argument about what powers of investigation they have; merely
>>about what the rules are. It might help if you were to state which parts
>>of the PM item you consider to be incorrect or misleading.
>
>
> Whatever was said on the PM programme is irrelevant because the HMRC
> power to investigate is general. RH
Thank you for this gem of Hendersonia.
Robert Henderson
writes
You obviously have no sense of logic. Fraud consists of making false
statements. If you claim to be within the rules by making a false
statement that is fraud,. RH
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <H2hPl.134394$oh6.1...@newsfe28.ams2>, grabber <g...@bb.er>
>writes
>>
>>"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:Ycd3pvRH...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <GI%Ol.109235$IC1....@newsfe06.ams2>, grabber <g...@bb.er>
>>>writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand HMRC's general powers. They can investigate
>>>>>any claim submitted to them if they have grounds for believing it
>>>>>to be fraudulent.
>>>>
>>>>There is no argument about what powers of investigation they have;
>>>>merely about what the rules are. It might help if you were to state
>>>>which parts of the PM item you consider to be incorrect or misleading.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever was said on the PM programme is irrelevant because the HMRC
>>>power to investigate is general. RH
>>
>>
>>Thank you for this gem of Hendersonia.
>
>You obviously have no sense of logic. Fraud consists of making false
>statements. If you claim to be within the rules by making a false
>statement that is fraud,. RH
You are, of course, wrong.
It is you have no sense of logic, as you have just proved by the above
collection of statements.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Internal combustion engines are the dinosaurs' revenge
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for this gem of Hendersonia.
>>
>>You obviously have no sense of logic. Fraud consists of making false
>>statements. If you claim to be within the rules by making a false
>>statement that is fraud,. RH
>
>You are, of course, wrong.
>
>It is you have no sense of logic, as you have just proved by the above
>collection of statements.
>--
understand the law in this area, vide your ignorance of intent being the
determining factor, and (2) you cannot follow a logical chain. RH
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <dmq015tg0jikaaiqp...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for this gem of Hendersonia.
>>>
>>>You obviously have no sense of logic. Fraud consists of making false
>>>statements. If you claim to be within the rules by making a false
>>>statement that is fraud,. RH
>>
>>You are, of course, wrong.
>>
>>It is you have no sense of logic, as you have just proved by the above
>>collection of statements.
>>--
>There is no point in debating with you because (1) you clearly don't
>understand the law in this area, vide your ignorance of intent being the
>determining factor, and (2) you cannot follow a logical chain. RH
Wrong on both counts.
But you are right to suggest there is no point in debating it, because
you have no idea of the law in this area, seeming to think that intent
is everything, when it is only one part of the requirement, and when
your ridiculous idea if a "logical chain" is that "A consists of B,
therefore IF B then A".
Actually, I suspect that your error with respect to intent is the same
which leads to that logical fallacy.
The fact that intent is essential for fraud does NOT mean that if
intent is there, then that is automatically fraud.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>--
>>There is no point in debating with you because (1) you clearly don't
>>understand the law in this area, vide your ignorance of intent being the
>>determining factor, and (2) you cannot follow a logical chain. RH
>
>Wrong on both counts.
>
>But you are right to suggest there is no point in debating it, because
>you have no idea of the law in this area, seeming to think that intent
>is everything, when it is only one part of the requirement, and when
>your ridiculous idea if a "logical chain" is that "A consists of B,
>therefore IF B then A".
>
>Actually, I suspect that your error with respect to intent is the same
>which leads to that logical fallacy.
>
>The fact that intent is essential for fraud does NOT mean that if
>intent is there, then that is automatically fraud.
Thank you for confirming my judgement of you. RH
Mike Ross
thinks she's "doing a great job".
Does the phrase 'fucking doomed, the lot of them!' ring a bell?
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <l2k3159qa7a1mgj6t...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>>--
>>>There is no point in debating with you because (1) you clearly don't
>>>understand the law in this area, vide your ignorance of intent being the
>>>determining factor, and (2) you cannot follow a logical chain. RH
>>
>>Wrong on both counts.
>>
>>But you are right to suggest there is no point in debating it, because
>>you have no idea of the law in this area, seeming to think that intent
>>is everything, when it is only one part of the requirement, and when
>>your ridiculous idea if a "logical chain" is that "A consists of B,
>>therefore IF B then A".
>>
>>Actually, I suspect that your error with respect to intent is the same
>>which leads to that logical fallacy.
>>
>>The fact that intent is essential for fraud does NOT mean that if
>>intent is there, then that is automatically fraud.
>
>Thank you for confirming my judgement of you. RH
Not possible.
For me to confirm your judgment, you would have to be capable of
forming one.
Incidentally, the above is one of the very first things taught in any
lessons in basic logic.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press on a small rodent's head to obtain file.
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>
>>>The fact that intent is essential for fraud does NOT mean that if
>>>intent is there, then that is automatically fraud.
>>
>>Thank you for confirming my judgement of you. RH
>
>Not possible.
>
>For me to confirm your judgment, you would have to be capable of
>forming one.
>
>Incidentally, the above is one of the very first things taught in any
>lessons in basic logic.
>--
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <r9u815d2lnli0u0i6...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>The fact that intent is essential for fraud does NOT mean that if
>>>>intent is there, then that is automatically fraud.
>>>
>>>Thank you for confirming my judgement of you. RH
>>
>>Not possible.
>>
>>For me to confirm your judgment, you would have to be capable of
>>forming one.
>>
>>Incidentally, the above is one of the very first things taught in any
>>lessons in basic logic.
>>--
>Yet more confirmation from Alex... RH
Just what is it, in your stupidity, that you think I am "confirming"?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You're not losing more hair, you're gaining more scalp.
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>Not possible.
>>>
>>>For me to confirm your judgment, you would have to be capable of
>>>forming one.
>>>
>>>Incidentally, the above is one of the very first things taught in any
>>>lessons in basic logic.
>>>--
>>Yet more confirmation from Alex... RH
>
>Just what is it, in your stupidity, that you think I am "confirming"?
>--
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1feb15h45l2ah3d7f...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>>Not possible.
>>>>
>>>>For me to confirm your judgment, you would have to be capable of
>>>>forming one.
>>>>
>>>>Incidentally, the above is one of the very first things taught in any
>>>>lessons in basic logic.
>>>>--
>>>Yet more confirmation from Alex... RH
>>
>>Just what is it, in your stupidity, that you think I am "confirming"?
>>--
>The confirmation continues.... RH
So I am just confirming you to be an idiot.
Fair enough, although you have been doing a pretty good job of it
yourself here.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>an idiot.
You have yourself to the life... RH