Do you actually read my posts, or just pick up on bits you can misrepresent for your own twisted benefit?

It is not a spurious point to say that he could have made a nomination at the point he owned both properties, if he had wanted to. That is clear from the rules. It is not a spurious point to say that a property which rightly (as I’ve now admitted countless times) did not attract CGT, was being treated as a second home for parliamentary expenses.

All you are doing is quoting part of a paragraph back at me, taking it out of context, in an attempt to ‘set me straight’.

What I resent is that despite the fact that I have repeatedly now accepted that he did nothing wrong regarding CGT, you still want to keep having a go at me for doing so in the first place.

You seem to have great difficulty in grasping the fact that some people will admit when they have got something wrong, as I have done; but do not appreciate attempts to continually ‘set them straight’ over a point they have already conceded.

It is clear to me that you have a different agenda to just setting people straight. I think you resent being challenged when you try to bully people here. Perhaps you should get used to it.

But that point is utterly spurious. You say “he continued on the basis that the London Flat was his main residence”. But on the contrary, what he has said is “I have always listed London as my second home on the basis set out in the parliamentary rules as I spent more time in Scotland than I did in London.” There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, as far as I have seen. (As has been pointed out to you over and over again, the fact that he paid no CGT when he sold his London flat tells us absolutely nothing about anything that happened after he was elected.)

You are flinging about quite serious accusations without a shred of evidence, and on the basis of an extremely tenuous grasp of the facts. And you seem to resent it when people set you straight. I’m sorry, but I think you’d better get used to it.

I will admit to rushing in a bit with my initial post. Having done that I did look into the issues around CGT further and realised I had made an error. Although reading up on the rules makes me glad I’m not an accountant!

For the record, if Danny Alexander has done anything ‘wrong’, he is certainly not anywhere near the worst of offenders. He clearly shouldn’t have to resign or pay anything back. As with much of this mess over expenses it is the system in the past that was the problem; although unfortunately plenty of MPs were happy to exploit it.

I also understand the desire to protect and defend Liberal Democrat MPs. There is clearly an onslaught against the party at the moment; making for some very strange bedfellows. Not that two wrongs make a right, but I don’t think Nick Clegg helped the situation with his expenses comments during the Leaders debates.

I think that there is a lot of ‘quick to defend’ and ‘quick to judge’ commenting going on, myself included in this case.

It is not my intention to clash with other contributors here. I’m not a troll and even if it seems like it sometimes, it is not my intention to annoy everyone here.

As I’ve said before, I have voted Liberal Democrat in previous General Elections and did so in local elections this time. Funnily enough the reason I moved away from the Liberal Democrats is precisely because this coalition with the Conservative Party sits very comfortably with the current Leadership.

I came here originally to engage on the issue of the 55% proposal and have stuck around as other events unfolded.

I’m not claiming his London flat was not exempt, or that it was never his only or main home. I’ve said that several times now and say so again. I apologise for getting it wrong in the first place. The only point I was making is that he could have designated his new home in Aviemore as his main residence if he wanted to. Instead he continued on the basis that the London Flat was his main residence whilst claiming expenses on it from parliament as his second home. I get the fact that he has done nothing wrong regarding CGT, however other issues still arise. As I’ve said before:

“Initially it was his only owned property. So it was ok for him to take taxpayers money for it whilst he was renting; and then to do it up and sell it after he had brought his new property in Aviemore.

He claimed £37,000. If that is averaged out over 2 years (elected in 2005 – sold in 2007) he claimed just over £1500 per month, for a residence he says he hardly ever lived in. The purpose of the expense is to pay for overnight stay costs relating to parliamentary or constituency business. It begs the question of whether this is really a reasonable use of the expense and good/fair value.”

And:

“The purpose of the expense here is to compensate for overnight stays in respect to parliamentary or constituency business. It is not there to help someone purchase a house, maintain and repair it and then profit from the sale. The fact that he also did not have to pay CGT simply adds to the cheek of it.

Financially this is a win, win, win for him. No CGT, profit from the sale of Elspeth Road (partly paid for and maintained by the taxpayer), and double the amount of interest payments from the taxpayer on his new home in London.”

When I’ve got something wrong and admit I’ve got something wrong; I don’t see why I should put up with other people hounding me. This is what I object to:

Posted 31st May 2010 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

I know the reasons why he wasn’t liable for CGT on the London property and it wasn’t as a result of you telling me several times. It was as a result of the fact that I understand the rules relating to CGT. We have established a fair point which is that I assumed he made a nomination regarding Elspeth Road, he may not have done so. For the purposes of CGT it is very clear that Elspeth Road would have been considered his main residence.

In reply I get the following:

Posted 1st June 2010 at 12:51 am | Permalink

Anyhow, I’ll repeat the question you’ve left unanswered. You seem to be suggesting that Danny Alexander somehow behaved improperly. Granted that whatever he did the sale of his London property in 2007 would have been exempt from CGT, what exactly are you saying he should have done differently?

So I admit I got something wrong, but that is not good enough for some people.

“So it is not as clear cut as you continue to suggest.”

It _is_ absolutely clear-cut, and extremely simple. The property had been his main residence in the past. Therefore it was exempt from CGT for the last 36 months before the sale. That is _regardless_ of anything that happened after he was elected to parliament.

You must realise that by now. So why are you continuing to claim otherwise?

So what’s your reason for not simply saying, “Ah, of course – it was his main home then, therefore it was his main home at some point during his ownership of it, therefore he qualified for the 36 months relief”?

Read the rules instead of lecturing me.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/property/sell-own-home.htm#5

The three year rule relating to private residence relief states:

The final three years (36 months) always qualify for relief, even if you weren’t living there, as long as it’s been your only or main home at some point during the time that you’ve owned it.

Regarding second homes it states:

If you live in – not just own – more than one property you can write to your Tax Office to tell them which one you want to choose – or ‘nominate as’ – your main home. See the link below if you’re not sure where your Tax Office is.

If you don’t tell your Tax Office which property you want them to treat as your main home, the one that’s treated as your main home will be decided on the facts. This may affect the amount of Capital Gains Tax you have to pay.

So it is not as clear cut as you continue to suggest. There would have been an opportunity for him to elect to nominate either property. However I have already agreed a number of times prior to your post on 1st June at 12.51am, that I accept Elspeth Road probably would not have been liable for CGT based on the facts of ownership, and that I was wrong to assume he did make a nomination.

I had already agreed that my original comments were incorrect on those two points, but like in other threads here that is never enough for you. You continue to want to rub peoples noses in things; almost like the dog owner rubbing his dogs’ nose in the shit to let him know what a naughty boy he’s been and telling him not to do it again.

You may believe everything in life is either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and that the merest possibility there might be a grey area between the two is simply blurring the issue; I do not.

The facts in this case are not as clear cut as you would like them to be and go beyond just the issue of CGT.

Sorry to be blunt, but what you need to do is stop whining about people “bullying” you when they point out you’ve got your facts wrong, and make the effort to get a rudimentary acquaintance with the relevant facts so that you don’t post quite so much nonsense.

Having said that, judging from your latest comment, I wonder whether it would help.

In the simplest terms I can manage – any property is exempt from CGT in relation to the last 3 years before you sell it, provided it has at some time been your main residence. It doesn’t have to be your main residence at the time you sell it. It’s enough that it has been your main residence at some time.

So, just one more time. Not necessarily at the time you sell it. It’s OK if it was at any time.

Would it help if I repeated it a few more times?

And you can expect me to continue pointing out when you are being an obnoxious and patronising bully. Referring to your comment below:

“And I don’t know how many times it must be repeated before it penetrates – but for the purposes of CGT the only thing that mattered was that it _had_ been his main residence in the past. Whether it was “considered his main residence” when he sold it was completely irrelevant.

I wonder when it will penetrate with you that it does matter, since he was living in both residences for a period of time. He had not left Elspeth Road empty or rented it out. So it is nonsense of you to say it is completely irrelevant.

Actually, I leaned over backwards on the other thread to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I’m sorry, but I’m not going to do that again. When you post nonsense here, expect to have it pointed out forcibly. And if you then try to blur the issue, expect to have it made crystal clear.

The message seems to be, it’s OK lawfully to avoid CGT, unless you’re a newly appointed Lib Dem Cheif Secretary of the Treasury. Or anyone else we don’t like.

My arguments relating to Danny Alexanders’ expenses are not circular and in any case the comment was not directed at you.

It was specifically directed at Anthony who has a clear track record in these matters; not reading what I actually say; presenting it as something else; and then criticising me in holier than thou tones. What becomes circular is me having to correct him every time he does this; for him to only go and do the same thing in the very next post.

I’m sure at some point he will post back here that this is not the case with some selective quote from me, and bemoan it is not his intention etc. etc. and that I should be careful not to bandy around criticisms of him. However there are other threads here which clearly show the way in which he tries to engage me. I was simply pointing out to him that I will not engage with him in that way this time.

If you, Anthony and others here want me to run along and leave you all to play in your own playground, that’s fine.

I do actually care about the issues I post on here, because I am concerned at the direction the Liberal Democrat Party is going in. It is wrong to assume I am anti Lib Dem in some way.

On this particular issue, I have accepted my initial comments were based on certain assumptions which may not be the case. I have also accepted that he appears to have done everything technically within the rules. I do not share some of the more nasty and vitriolic views of some other posters here. What I do find difficult to accept is that there seems to be a view that it is either black or white in this case. For me it falls very much into the gray area in between. So the two extremes of divine innocence and devilish guilt, just don’t cut it for me.

It is possible to change or develop views/opinions during these discussions and I do that where I have been persuaded by the arguments. There is a tendency here to believe everything is either right or wrong and a desire to hound posters until they admit their ‘errors’ and/or to tell them to go away.

I am not sure whether or not non ownership interests give rise to CGT or not is really the point (as you point out some will and some won’t). All I’m saying is that if someone has an interest in another property i.e through renting it when working away from home – then this could lead to a period when the main property is not being occupied and therefore does not qualify for full private residence relief. This would appear to be the position in the HMRC guidance which gies examples of such situations, and which make clear that the exmptions for working away from home are only met if certain conditions are met – including that the main residence is returned to afterwards.

… perhaps because your arguments are circular.

” I have better things to do.”

Why don’t you take your own advice and do something more profitable?

“Your main residence is not defined by whether you own it or not – it depends on whether you have an interest in it – this can be through a rental agreement or a lease. I pointed out that interests and ownership differ for companies by way of example ”

I don’t know whether you just missed my comment? You cannot make a capital gain on a shorthold tenancy agreement. A rental property under those terms is not an asset. I am making, I think, the reasonable assumption that Alexander’s property was rented on those terms, like the majority of rentals in the UK. If you know any different, let’s hear it. The interest you acquire by taking out a STA does not count for the purposes of the PPR relief, because the relief only exists in the context of rules on capital gains from the sale of assets. Otherwise, logically, a holiday cottage would also count as an interest to be considered in the context of applying the PPR rules.

When s 222 talks of “interest” it is intended to take in a wide field of legal constructs which would indeed include a leasehold property. But “leasehold property” is not the same thing as “rented property”, where the latter is held on an STA (or Scottish equivalent). You are eliding the two.

The contradiction is that since he became an MP in 2005 he used the Elspeth Road address as a second home to claim expenses on it.

As has been pointed out if a person works away from their main home, as DA would appear to have done when he was with the Cairngorm NP, then such a period of absence is not required to count as a period of non occupation of the main residence for CGT purposes. However, such a saving is conditional on the person occupying the main residence both before and after the period working away from home. So does this mean that in order to avoid a CGT liability in respect of his period while working away from his main residence, that DA had in effect reoccupied his London Property as his main residence when he returned from Scotland – presumably after his election as an MP?

If he did this would mean that while an MP his London property was his main residence for tax purposes and his second residence for expenses. It would appear that DA was appointed to the Cairngorms NP before the start of the 36 month period as he is minuted as attending its meetings as Head of Communications in February 2004.

Unadulterated codswallop. The court will only inquire into the reason why a particular statute was enacted if the literal meaning leads to an absurdity. The literal meaning of the tax rule in question is clear. If one’s principal residence ceases to be one’s principal residence, one is not liable to pay CGT on profits made from its sale if one sells within 36 months. Ergo, the reason why the rule was enacted is of the utmost irrelevance.

Like the NSDAP, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the tobacco industry before them, these trolls will go on repeating the same old lies, long after they have been exposed as such, in the hope that with continued repetition they will come to be accepted as the truth. That is their tactic.