Re 2, 3 and 4 – I’m happy to acknowledge that I misunderstood some of the process – partly because I did not appreciate the changes to the nomiation process, it is still the case howver that if the person makes no nomination then the decisions as to what is then main residence and periods of occupation are made at the time of the disposal based upon the facts. I note that you have also become somewhat confused on the nomination process. I am also still not clear why the HMRC makes the reference to including the 36 month period “when appropiate” in one of its documents. As one commenter observed I th

Re 5 – no you are wrong – gains during the last 36 months are not exempt – look at how the calculation works – it takes the gain over the entire holding period (i.e including the last 36 months) and then multiplies it by the period of occupation (including the last 36 months regardless) divided by the total period of ownership. If there are periods when the property is not occupied – a proportion of the increase in the price of property during the last 36 months will be taxed

It is allowed for people to be mistaken and make errors – that is not the same as being untruthful (or lying as I prefer to call it), but I’m afraid that is line with your rather cheap style as others have also observed, If I wanted to lie on these matters I would have thought that the last place to do it would be here.

Having read the comments to date – I do still have a question as to whether or not DA had to reoccupy his main residence when returning from working in Scotland between Feb 2004 and May 2005 – since periods working away from home can only usually be treated as occupying the main residence if the main residence is returned to. If this is the case then DA would have treated his London property as his main residence for CGT purposes and his 2nd residence for expenses purposes. Perhaps DA needs to answer this point – as I dont’t think he has to date.

Here’s a quick selection of untrue statements you’ve made on this thread. I hope this will be enough to be going on with for now:

(1) Kitty Ussher did the same thing
(2) The only time you designate homes for CGT purposes is when you sell them – there is no process for prior designation with HMRC
(3) he took the option to treat his London home as his main one for tax purposes as such until it was disposed of
(4) many people don’t claim the 36 month exemption because they want the relief to apply to their new property rather than the old one
(5) The final 36 months are exempt only when the dwelling has been the individual’s only or main residence throughout the period of ownership

Before you give us any more lectures in morality, I reckon you need to take an elementary course in basic truthfulness yourself.

You may want a state that can outlaw all amoral acts – but i don’t think you will find that many who believe in true liberal principles would share that belief. Perhaps you should ask yourself why if HAzel Blears was able to do the moral thing and find a way of paying her CGT when the error of her ways came to light – Danny Alexander isn’t able to follow the same moral course. I’m pretty sure that there are quite a number of ways that he could make amends.

“Not paying a tax you’re not supposed to pay is, er, not actually amoral according to any philosophical or theological definition I’ve ever heard of what morality is.” What do you think that “render to Caesar, that which belongs to Caesar ” actually means – there are also plenty of philosophers who have outlined a moral basis for taxation – and what taxation is fair and unfair.

As for defining morality – perhaps you need to address the other gaps in your education first, but needless to say I don’t think you will find many ordinary people who thing that it is right or moral to avoid different definition of main/prtimary residence for tax, parlimentary expenses and I daresay electoral purposes. Think about it? You lot did it for 13 years isn’t a very good answer I’m afraid.

BTW the more I think about the more it appears that the wrong LibDem has left the Government.

One wonders exactly how Alexander was supposed to pay this tax when he wasn’t requested to do so. I also liked this quote, from earlier (Ctrl-F to find the original post)

“The argument isn’t one of legality but of morality. I’m perfectly aware that CGT law allows someone to nominate any of their residences as the main home on which they receive the exemption from CGT. But is it moral that the CGT main home should be different from that which is used for parlimentary expense purposes?”

Doesn’t the government of the time have something to answer for if something apparently amoral is allowed under law? I’m sure that someone was aware that this 3-year rule existed – after all, 13 years is a long time for that government in question to be in office. So if this is amoral, doesn’t this put the government of the time into serious question? I mean, they had such a long time to make this apparently amoral act illegal. It’s not as if they didn’t have time to make things illegal…

And, like most of the people on this website who are not acting like screaming infants in desperate need for Mother Attention, his London house was his main residence until 2006 and then he sold it in 2007 and as prior it had been his home, he was by law . This is called not paying tax you’re not supposed to pay. Laws is only slightly questionable, but considering the circumstances (being perfectly happy in the closet, see Articles 2 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the very least) he too is forgivable.

I’m pretty sure that every single person on this website (unless you’re God, in which case please get on with all that holy buisness and not posting here!) has done actually “amoral” acts in the past. Not paying a tax you’re not supposed to pay is, er, not actually amoral according to any philosophical or theological definition I’ve ever heard of what morality is.

Please define amoral before you accuse others of being amoral. Please remember your human rights commitments before attacking people for attempting to lead their lives how they choose without persecution, ill thought or other consequences.

FFS read the feckin rules yourself.

When he purchased a property in Aviemore in 2006 as he says in his own statement, at that point he had two properties. He does have to elect a property as his main residence, it’s in the rules that he must do so within a 2 year period.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/article.html?in_article_id=410130&in_page_id=8

“He didn’t tell HM Customs and Excise anything as they went out of existence in April 2005.”

Thank you for correcting me, I knew it went out of existence but comments cannot be edited. I’m not sure it negates the point though.

“Until 2006 it was the only property he owned. He owned two properties from 2006 with the Scottish one becoming his main residence for tax and parliamentary claims expenses. According to HRMC rules his second home in London would not become liable for CGT until 2009. He sold it in 2007.”

Funnily enough I know that. It isn’t the point. The point is for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses Elspeth Road was his second home. It may not be a loophole (thank you for the English lesson btw), but it is certainly exploited by people to avoid CGT that would otherwise be paid.

As I said to Mark he would also have had to make the decision to elect Elspeth Road as his main residence, but was still happy to claim ‘second’ home expenses on it.

“I also believe that Steve D failed to pay income tax on his first £6,475 of income in the last tax year due to a tax personal allowance loophole. Can you confirm that you used this loophole?”

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

FFS – read the feckin tax rules. He wasn’t liable for CGT on the London property even though it was a secondary residence. He didn’t have to (re)designate as a primary residence.

The issue is that he states himself that:

“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.”

So, he had a rented property in Aviemore until 2006, then a property that he purchased. During this time he was claiming expenses for Elspeth Road as his second home. At the point of sale he says:

“I sold the Elspeth Road flat in 2007 and moved to another flat but was advised that CGT was not payable because of the operation of final period relief, which exempts homes from CGT for 36 months after they stop being the main home. “

The issue therefore is clear, Elspeth Road was his main residence for tax purposes, but his ‘second’ home for parliamentary expenses. Further, at the point he purchased a residence in Aviemore in 2007 he would at some point have had to elect Elspeth Road as his main residence.

If you are happy for MPs to do one thing for a tax benefit and another for parliamentary expenses, then so be it.

As I understand it, Nick Clegg is supposed to have committed all his MPs to something much stronger than that – he has said they will repay all capital gains on their second homes. I have always been sceptical about the likelihood of that happening, and this makes me more so.

Funny how you’ve just discovered the Press are abusing press freedom and you want press reform now that they attack a couple of LibDems in power. I wonder how long it will be before you start undertaking personal acts of sabotage?

You really should wait a little longer than three weeks before you jettison former liberal principles such as freedom of the press – they way things are going you won’t have many principles left by Xmas.

“We don’t want fudge, we want blood.”

More than that, we want to see body parts ripped off and vital organs ripped out.

Press reform must come soon.

It’s not like bank holiday weekends in the lead up to a world cup are the best time to make an impact in the wider population, but they’ve gone in hard and fast to satisfy the insistent urgings of their bosses and they’ll have to keep up the pace or suffer the backlash as the counter attacks gather pace.

So if this is all the ammunition they’ve got I almost pity the way they will curl up and whimper as their own weaknesses begin to be exposed.

Let’s see what happens when tax havens are abolished. Let’s see what happens as the corporate loopholes begin to be closed and the public gets behind the improvement in society this brings as we wake up that sections of the media are undermining their own businesses, the wider economy and our democracy. The media must get its house in order.

An example needs to be set. The Telegraph and Mail’s city pages are used on a daily basis by interested traders to manipulate the markets in blatant fashion, so I think the PCC should be forced to prove itself fit for purpose by launching a thoroughgoing investigation or face be reformed.

Serious journalists should take note: gossip is not legitimate journalism. The crowd are agitated and are getting impatient. I think I can see substitutes warming up on the sideline. There is a tasty atmosphere hanging over the arena. Heads are going to roll.

We don’t want fudge, we want blood.

You know very well that you can have an interest in a dwelling can be established other than by ownership e.g. by a rental agreement or lease. Yes of course you can nominate whichever property you want – I did not claim Alexaander was acting illegally, that would have been plain stupid.

Strangely enough I don’t remember many LibDems referring to this ability to nominate the main residence irrespective of the facts during the last Parliament. Is this what is meant by the new politics?

Danny Alexander’s statement says “Until the spring of 2006 this was the only property we owned”

In addition the Manual states;
“TCGA92/S222 (5)
Section 222(5) gives an individual the right to choose which of his or her two or more residences is to be treated as the main residence for private residence relief purposes. It therefore follows that a dwelling house must be in use as a residence of that individual before it can be validly nominated.

In certain circumstances the legislation treats a dwelling house which is not a residence of an individual as if it was their residence for a particular period. See CG64477. This may result in an individual having more than one residence within Section 222 and in these circumstances the right of nomination applies in the same way.

When nominating which residence is to be treated as the main residence, an individual is not obliged to nominate the residence which is factually his or her main residence; they may nominate whichever residence they choose.”

In future when you wish to interpret tax rules could I suggest you go and look at the actual legislation – what you say is the case only applies when the dwelling has been the individual’s only or main residence throughout the period of ownership. Alexander’s press release does not say this – only that it was the only property that he owned. What I would find interesting is how his London property was his only or main residence while he was spokesman for the Cairngorm National Park in 2004

223
Amount of relief .(1)
No part of a gain to which section 222 applies shall be a chargeable gain if the dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house has been the individual’s only or main residence throughout the period of ownership, or throughout the period of ownership except for all or any part of the last 36 months of that period. .
(2)
Where subsection (1) above does not apply, a fraction of the gain shall not be a chargeable gain, and that fraction shall be— .
(a)
the length of the part or parts of the period of ownership during which the dwelling-house or the part of the dwelling-house was the individual’s only or main residence, but inclusive of the last 36 months of the period of ownership in any event, divided by .
(b)
the length of the period of ownership.