AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
And Hazel's out of control according to the Torygraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...is-out-of-control-Gordon-Brown-is-warned.html
... I hope every last one of them loses their job and gets prosecuted.
Christ, they're really briefing heavily against her aren't they. Classic Mandelson smear campaign.
Does anyone know what would happen to a regular Joe Bloggs who told the Inland Revenue that that a property they had sold was their main residence, in order to avoid/evade paying Capital Gains Tax... while they were also claiming to their employer that it was their second residence in order to claim expenses from their employer?from Telegraph article said:Last week Miss Blears said she was paying back £13,332 in capital gains tax (CGT) on the £45,000 profit from the sale of a London flat in 2004.
At the time she had declared the property to be her second home with the House of Commons and her main residence for tax purposes – meaning she was not liable for CGT.
Surely, she has two options, either:
* She tells the Inland Revenue that she told them porkies, in which case, pay the tax due (as she has apparently done or is doing), but wouldn't a regular Joe Bloggs also have all their tax records gone over with a fine tooth comb if they had done something as dodgy as that? And wouldn't a regular Joe Bloggs be fined interest for the whole period on top of the amount originally due? And wouldn't they be subject to other penalties? And would the Inland Revenue automatically prosecute a regular Joe Bloggs? Or would they just let them off with a slap on the wrist? I'm guessing that a regular Joe Bloggs would have the book thrown at them.
* She tells the parliamentary authorities that she told them porkies, in which case, she repays all the expenses she fraudulently claimed. And then they call in the authorities and she's prosecuted. I mean, if any Joe Bloggs had fraudulently claimed expenses to the tune of thousands of pounds, to which they weren't really entitled (and it's a case of either she was entitled to the parliamentary expenses OR entitled to not pay Capital Gains Tax, one or the other, so she's done something wrong either way), then surely their company would call in the police and set the fraud squad on them?
Seriously, any other random member of the public would probably be done for fraud or theft, so why should politicians expect to get away with fiddling their expenses?


