Non Dom status

[Employment Law Clinic]

Some racism, some envious of the rich, some labour supporters, some not understanding the non-dom legalities, some thinking that Sumak's position is a conflict of interest. . . . . . . .

Honestly, I think these are just lazy scattergun tropes, not addressing the arguments at all, and I would have expected better of @MyOfficeInChina .

Many of the initial points are not worthy of comment, so I’ll address only the latter ones.

Labour supporters? Would Richard Bacon, Conservative MP for South Norfolk, be categorised in that way too, when he said people would be pissed off with this non-dom status availability?


Non-dom details under scrutinty here can be summarised as the wife of the Chancellor, with a husband in parliament (once perhaps aspiring to the highest office), children in school, was not considering the UK her permanent home – she was only temporarily in the UK.

(A summary of the non-dom laws can be found here. All very easy to follow, at least to form a view on whether something should be looked at more closely.)

Perhaps all reasonable, but if it looks iffy, surely no harm in asking questions: ... as the Met Police have recently discovered, if you investigate something that has rumours of illegality circling around it, you may just find a law was broken.


Sunak literally makes the laws, decides on whether to change the rules on such things as non-dom. Is that not a potential conflict of interest (and I only argue, potential - it's for others to investigate, consider whether he should have recused himself from such policies), when he is making decisions that could influence his own household income (if he & wife stay together, if she doesn’t move to India, while he stays in the UK) for millions of pounds?

It’s all just party politics though, as long as it’s only morally wrong, not legally wrong, it’s fine… except when it's someone high profile.


Play the ball, @MyOfficeInChina


Karl Limpert

 

[Financial-Modeller]

@Michael14 if you're wealthy enough to be considering Non-Dom status, you're wealthy enough to pay for professional advice on the subject, rather than asking strangers for free advice.

To those discussing Sunak's wife, the Sunday Times reported that:

"when Sunak became a minister in 2018, he sat down with Helen MacNamara, the head of propriety and ethics, and talked her through his own finances, reported to amount to £200 million, and that of his wife. He moved his own investments into a blind trust and revealed both that his wife was a non-dom and that they both held green cards, handed to those with permanent residence in America and an obligation to file a US tax return."

Verifying Device

Perhaps the bigger question is who leaked this story last week and why?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

"when Sunak became a minister in 2018, he sat down with Helen MacNamara, the head of propriety and ethics

This Helen MacNamara?


Karl Limpert

 

[Newchodge]

In general? or in this specific case only?

In general. The legislature trying to undermine the judiciary has been a classic fascist tactic and has been used pretty extensively by this government over the last 3 years.

 

[WaveJumper]

I agree with @Employment Law Clinic there’s more leaks in No10 than the Titanic. What makes me wonder though is who thinks / advises these people it’s a “good look” yes you may have disclosed but when looked at within the public eye how is it going to go be perceived. Bit like someone suggesting he “pretended” to drive a little car on to a petrol garage forecourt and had no idea how to fill it up or pay, then got into his chauffeur driven car.

I really cringe at these so-called advisors who are probably paid a shed load of money

 

[Newchodge]

I agree with @Employment Law Clinic there’s more leaks in No10 than the Titanic. What makes me wonder though is who thinks / advises these people it’s a “good look” yes you may have disclosed but when looked at within the public eye how is it going to go be perceived. Bit like someone suggesting he “pretended” to drive a little car on to a petrol garage forecourt and had no idea how to fill it up or pay, then got into his chauffeur driven car.

I really cringe at these so-called advisors who are probably paid a shed load of money

I cringe more at those who cannot see the advice they are given for the pile of doo doo that it often is!

 

[NickGrogan]

In general. The legislature trying to undermine the judiciary has been a classic fascist tactic and has been used pretty extensively by this government over the last 3 years.

So MPs should have agreed with the initial verdicts in

Hillsborough?
Rochdale?
Stephen Lawrence?
Birmingham 6?

Strange to think that Andy Burnham is a fascist.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

So MPs should have agreed with the initial verdicts in

Hillsborough?
Rochdale?
Stephen Lawrence?
Birmingham 6?

Strange to think that Andy Burnham is a fascist.

Very strange comparators.

Hillsborough - even Taylor LJ blamed the police;

Rochdale - was there ever an initial verdict? Neither the police, nor social services investigated it;

Stephen Lawrence - an independent inquiry called the police institutionally racist;

Birmingham 6 - going back nearly 50 years now, to a time when it's widely recognised the police were corrupt.

This last example is important, though, as it was at a time when the judiciary (judges) took police officers on their word - as they still do today.

How that applies to politicians/the government is summarised very well here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514204150275485697

.



Karl Limpert

 

[NickGrogan]

Hillsborough - even Taylor LJ blamed the police;

"Following the Taylor Report, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled there was no evidence to justify prosecution of any individuals or institutions"

and after campaigning

"In June 2017, six people were charged with offences including manslaughter by gross negligence, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice for their actions during and after the disaster. "

Hardly the same

Rochdale

The abuse of underage girls that occurred in 2008 and 2009 centred around two takeaways in Heywood near Rochdale. Despite one victim going to the police in 2008 to report the child grooming, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute two men.

and after campaigning

Nine men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child in May 2012. This resulted in Greater Manchester Police launching Operation Doublet to investigate further claims of abuse with 19 men so far being convicted.

Stephen Lawrence - an independent inquiry called the police institutionally racist;

Before or after campaigning?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

So MPs should have agreed with the initial verdicts in

Hillsborough?
Rochdale?
Stephen Lawrence?
Birmingham 6?

Strange to think that Andy Burnham is a fascist.

"Following the Taylor Report, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled there was no evidence to justify prosecution of any individuals or institutions"

and after campaigning

"In June 2017, six people were charged with offences including manslaughter by gross negligence, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice for their actions during and after the disaster. "

Hardly the same



The abuse of underage girls that occurred in 2008 and 2009 centred around two takeaways in Heywood near Rochdale. Despite one victim going to the police in 2008 to report the child grooming, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute two men.

and after campaigning

Nine men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child in May 2012. This resulted in Greater Manchester Police launching Operation Doublet to investigate further claims of abuse with 19 men so far being convicted.



Before or after campaigning?

So what you're really arguing is that when something wasn't even put before the judiciary - the courts - that's a failing of the judiciary?


I don't argue for the CPS or its actions in many cases, but the CPS is separate to the courts - it's our/the public's independent authority to decide whether to prosecute a case, on behalf of the public; it is not the actual judiciary, which is generally independent, and doesn't agree with even Parliament itself.


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

Honestly, I think these are just lazy scattergun tropes, not addressing the arguments at all, and I would have expected better of @MyOfficeInChina .

Many of the initial points are not worthy of comment, so I’ll address only the latter ones.

Labour supporters? Would Richard Bacon, Conservative MP for South Norfolk, be categorised in that way too, when he said people would be pissed off with this non-dom status availability?


Non-dom details under scrutinty here can be summarised as the wife of the Chancellor, with a husband in parliament (once perhaps aspiring to the highest office), children in school, was not considering the UK her permanent home – she was only temporarily in the UK.

(A summary of the non-dom laws can be found here. All very easy to follow, at least to form a view on whether something should be looked at more closely.)

Perhaps all reasonable, but if it looks iffy, surely no harm in asking questions: ... as the Met Police have recently discovered, if you investigate something that has rumours of illegality circling around it, you may just find a law was broken.


Sunak literally makes the laws, decides on whether to change the rules on such things as non-dom. Is that not a potential conflict of interest (and I only argue, potential - it's for others to investigate, consider whether he should have recused himself from such policies), when he is making decisions that could influence his own household income (if he & wife stay together, if she doesn’t move to India, while he stays in the UK) for millions of pounds?

It’s all just party politics though, as long as it’s only morally wrong, not legally wrong, it’s fine… except when it's someone high profile.


Play the ball, @MyOfficeInChina


Karl Limpert

The trouble is.....

It appears no laws have been broken. Yet here you are, trying to shame the Indian residence and her Indian tax affairs.

I mean, I would take you seriously, though you have a website that is advertising a trading company that appears to have two similar trading names compulsory dissolved and struck off by companies House last year....which begs the question, why?

It feels a bit rich to be throwing stones at someone else's tax affairs when (on the face of it) you appear to have enacted the phoenix on two companies in the last year.....I wonder why?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The trouble is.....

It appears no laws have been broken. Yet here you are, trying to shame the Indian residence and her Indian tax affairs.

Where have I once tried to shame anyone? Can you link to a single post? Or are you a liar too, Scubadog?

I've simply called out what a Tory MP said people were pissed-off with, back in 2015.


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

In general? or in this specific case only?

11, 13, 22, 36, 37.

Literally throughout you are attempting to call shame on the chancellor for his wife's tax affairs....when it appears yours may be hiding a issue.....


Does that make you a hypocrite?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

It feels a bit rich to be throwing stones at someone else's tax affairs when (on the face of it) you appear to have enacted the phoenix on two companies in the last year.....I wonder why?

“on the face of it” is a nice get-out, Scuba.


I recall the time well that led to those companies being neglected. A bailiff turned up at my house in late January 2020, shortly after I had dropped my son at school, broke the door down, and evicted us there & then – no notice they were coming, just someone breaking down my front door...


... oh, and then there was a pandemic, and a few weeks later, we were back on the street, outside a Travelodge hotel that had evicted us with only a few hours notice, with nowhere to live, at a time we were all ordered to "stay home".



That eviction is still in court actually, as a contested unlawful eviction, but as I left the property with barely more than my son’s Trunkie filled with overnight clothes for him, I lost pretty much everything then, including my businesses.

(They didn't even throw stones at the window to say they were there, let alone ring the bell! They just started breaking the door down.)


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

“on the face of it” is a nice get-out, Scuba.


I recall the time well that led to those companies being neglected. A bailiff turned up at my house in late January 2020, shortly after I had dropped my son at school, broke the door down, and evicted us there & then – no notice they were coming, just someone breaking down my front door...


... oh, and then there was a pandemic, and a few weeks later, we were back on the street, outside a Travelodge hotel that had evicted us with only a few hours notice, with nowhere to live, at a time we were all ordered to "stay home".



That eviction is still in court actually, as a contested unlawful eviction, but as I left the property with barely more than my son’s Trunkie filled with overnight clothes for him, I lost pretty much everything then, including my businesses.

(They didn't even throw stones at the window to say they were there, let alone ring the bell! They just started breaking the door down.)


Karl Limpert

Ahhhh....so you owed money to people, other businesses or HMRC.


Do baliffs turn up unannounced? Usually this follows a court summons which (presuming found guilty) the person or business was found guilty of a civil case requiring the recovery of debts.

Does this explain the pent up anger and resentment of those with money?

But let's just be clear.....Rishi's wife pays tax in her country (which you disagree with) and seemingly abides by uk and Indian laws, whilst paying more towards this country than you or anyone else on here....but seemingly not enough for your liking.....


Yet its acceptable for you to fold two companies, owing debts and then to pheonix another? Lets hope the person or business managed to recover the monies owed to them, during what you have rightly highlighted was a tough time.

Hmmmmm

but this is the point...I know less than half the story, yet I am judging you by the facts in the public domain....just as you are doing to her. Its literally the same!

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

11, 13, 22, 36, 37.

Literally throughout you are attempting to call shame on the chancellor for his wife's tax affairs....when it appears yours may be hiding a issue.....


Does that make you a hypocrite?

The trouble is, you're both silly, and a liar, @Scubadog


Do we all have to be innocent of anything, ever, to call out our politicians? That could exclude me - I may have done some bold (Irish vernacular for naughty or bad) things as a kid, when I lived in Ireland.


I make no judgment on whether Nick is a hypocrite, but I think your posts, seeking to find fault in others without meaningfully engaging the arguments, makes you look silly, Scuba. Grow up, argue the points, not make pathetic attempts to discredit the people making them.


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

The trouble is, you're both silly, and a liar, @Scubadog


Do we all have to be innocent of anything, ever, to call out our politicians? That could exclude me - I may have done some bold (Irish vernacular for naughty or bad) things as a kid, when I lived in Ireland.


I make no judgment on whether Nick is a hypocrite, but I think your posts, seeking to find fault in others without meaningfully engaging the arguments, makes you look silly, Scuba. Grow up, argue the points, not make pathetic attempts to discredit the people making them.


Karl Limpert

Where is the lie?


The point was made based on the truth the fact it may discredit you is not my problem.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

But let's just be clear.....Rishi's wife pays tax in her country (which you disagree with) and seemingly abides by uk and Indian laws, whilst paying more towards this country than you or anyone else on here....but seemingly not enough for your liking.....

In her own country? Which country? I thought she lived in the UK (until last week, 10/11 Downing Street!), where her children go to school, and her husband of a member of the parliament & government.

Do baliffs turn up unannounced? Usually this follows a court summons which (presuming found guilty) the person or business was found guilty of a civil case requiring the recovery of debts.

Yes, apparently so! They say they sent notice to someone, somewhere, but it was a completely unrelated address, so never received. Part of the reasons the case is still in court…

Yet its acceptable for you to fold two companies, owing debts and then to pheonix another? Lets hope the person or business managed to recover the monies owed to them, during what you have rightly highlighted was a tough time.

Perhaps it’s time to stop making false allegations, @Scubadog.

I never folded the companies; I left my home with no clothes, nothing. I had to go shopping, just to have clean underwear. And being homeless, in a pandemic, told to stay at home (although the bailiff had changed the lock, so I couldn’t), and home-schooling my autistic son, I neglected some things, including formalities with companies house. They - Companies House - folded the companies, not me! I simply neglected them.

owing debts

Any evidence to support this, at all, @Scubadog? None, because you’re a dumb liar, make up nonsense as you go. You may care to be more careful about accusations you make.



Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Where is the lie?

The point was made based on the truth the fact it may discredit you is not my problem.

Here’s the first lie you posted, @Scubadog:

Yet here you are, trying to shame the Indian residence and her Indian tax affairs.

I won’t bother with them all, I've highlighted them above.


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

Here’s the first lie you posted, @Scubadog:



I won’t bother with them all, I've highlighted them above.


Karl Limpert

Just be honest....you hate tory governments and everything they have done.


Your are guilty of confirmation bias.....and you just live to jump on anything potentially anti tory....or at least thats the vibe you give off, on here and on twitter.

I mean....unless you are suggestyou don't have an issue with the Non dom story? Only...it seems you do.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Just be honest....you hate tory governments and everything they have done.


Your are guilty of confirmation bias.....and you just live to jump on anything potentially anti tory....or at least thats the vibe you give off, on here and on twitter.

I mean....unless you are suggestyou don't have an issue with the Non dom story? Only...it seems you do.

I joined Twitter in 2011, when the platform was mainly used to share pics of what sandwich people were having for lunch – if the Whale didn’t appear instead.

I’ve been both critical & supportive of the gov’t since then, as appropriate; it’s only been Conservative (or Conservative-led) gov’ts though, so a bit difficult to be critical of any other party’s gov’t.

I’ve been quite clear, I have an issue with the non-dom “story”, or more accurately the tax status of the Chancellor’s wife. As have many others, including Conservative MPs

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512042142541271040

.

But while we’re being honest, @Scubadog, why not admit you dive to the extremes, just dig for shit where there is none, because you can’t actually argue with the valid points that are made.


Crawl back under your rock, you're getting boring now.


Karl Limpert

 

[Scubadog]

I joined Twitter in 2011, when the platform was mainly used to share pics of what sandwich people were having for lunch – if the Whale didn’t appear instead.

I’ve been both critical & supportive of the gov’t since then, as appropriate; it’s only been Conservative (or Conservative-led) gov’ts though, so a bit difficult to be critical of any other party’s gov’t.

I’ve been quite clear, I have an issue with the non-dom “story”, or more accurately the tax status of the Chancellor’s wife. As have many others, including Conservative MPs

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512042142541271040

.

But while we’re being honest, @Scubadog, why not admit you dive to the extremes, just dig for **** where there is none, because you can’t actually argue with the valid points that are made.


Crawl back under your rock, you're getting boring now.


Karl Limpert

So.....you disapprove of the non dom? Only, you seem to be backtracking now.

 

[Scubadog]

I joined Twitter in 2011, when the platform was mainly used to share pics of what sandwich people were having for lunch – if the Whale didn’t appear instead.

I’ve been both critical & supportive of the gov’t since then, as appropriate; it’s only been Conservative (or Conservative-led) gov’ts though, so a bit difficult to be critical of any other party’s gov’t.

I’ve been quite clear, I have an issue with the non-dom “story”, or more accurately the tax status of the Chancellor’s wife. As have many others, including Conservative MPs

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512042142541271040

.

But while we’re being honest, @Scubadog, why not admit you dive to the extremes, just dig for **** where there is none, because you can’t actually argue with the valid points that are made.


Crawl back under your rock, you're getting boring now.


Karl Limpert

Well, I suppose someone has to pay for all these social houses provided by councils.


And I suppose the natural thing is for those who rely on state handouts to ask rich Indian foreign nationals to pay for their lifestyles......

 

[Newchodge]

So MPs should have agreed with the initial verdicts in

Hillsborough?
Rochdale?
Stephen Lawrence?
Birmingham 6?

Strange to think that Andy Burnham is a fascist.

Please explain exactly which judicial decision (decision made by a judge) the legislature (Houses of Commons and Lords and their members) tried to undermine in those cases.

 

[Fagin2021]

I can’t claim to be a complete innocent but what really irks is the hypocrisy of both the public and the politician. The public, because most of us avoid tax if we can. Even my music teacher, a staunch socialist who is furiously critical of ‘the rich’, likes to be paid in (undeclared) cash for her lessons. It’s a question of scale – not principle.

Although I’ve no love for the legal tactics of foreign corporations to minimise their UK tax bill, I cringe when I watch MPs on select committees lambasting them for using the laws they themselves have set. The same MPs who...

Put moat cleaning on expenses...”I always followed the guidelines”
Flip my taxpayer-funded second home to avoid CGT...”It’s allowed by the rules”.
Got three jobs and four consultancies... “Perfectly legal – I’ve declared them”.

A pox on them all (not my teacher of course).

Having asked a few people what they mean by 'tax the rich' I've come to the conclusion that what they really mean is "tax people who have more money than me".

 

[simon field]

I can’t claim to be a complete innocent but what really irks is the hypocrisy of both the public and the politician. The public, because most of us avoid tax if we can. Even my music teacher, a staunch socialist who is furiously critical of ‘the rich’, likes to be paid in (undeclared) cash for her lessons. It’s a question of scale – not principle.

Although I’ve no love for the legal tactics of foreign corporations to minimise their UK tax bill, I cringe when I watch MPs on select committees lambasting them for using the laws they themselves have set. The same MPs who...

Put moat cleaning on expenses...”I always followed the guidelines”
Flip my taxpayer-funded second home to avoid CGT...”It’s allowed by the rules”.
Got three jobs and four consultancies... “Perfectly legal – I’ve declared them”.

A pox on them all (not my teacher of course).

Having asked a few people what they mean by 'tax the rich' I've come to the conclusion that what they really mean is "tax people who have more money than me".

I agree. ‘Those who earn more, should pay more’

Erm, they already do. We have a thing called ‘income tax’!

 

[WaveJumper]

This is such a difficult subject one may even say divisive. As others have already mentioned no one wants to pay more tax than they need to in many cases we will do all that’s legal to reduce our tax bill ( that’s at least what I hope our accountants and tax advisor are paid to do) The trouble seems to start When we hear of people who are “on another level” financially and are able to structure there affairs in away they avoid any form of tax i.e. offshore accounts etc.

I am sure if we could all do this we would, this has been going on for years I worked in an industry (commercial property) where if you cared to take a look probably every shopping centre, iconic building you know of are held in offshore trusts paying no tax in the UK whatsoever. And these offshore funds range from the likes of the Rowntree’s Family to the Catholic Church and yes even some of your local councils (shock horror, oh yes and some councils even keep all their money in offshore bank accounts)

So, the tax ‘burden’ on the “general public” is probably what’s keeping us going and right now those in the middle are getting the biggest squeeze they have had for a long time. Slightly different maybe for those self-employed or company owners who can perhaps arrange their tax affairs in a more advantageous way.

What the answer is I do not know, a tax system that encourages those to hold more of their wealth / income in the UK at much lower rates of tax I might even then be able to see a dentist on the NHS.

However, this is probably going off the topic of this thread which I feel was more about the accountability of those in power, those making the rules that we are all obliged to follow and have little wriggle room to avoid. Whether this be attending parties, non-Dom status, green cards etc etc personally I just want them to have some morals and not treat us all as fools.

Is that too much to ask

 

[Newchodge]

This is such a difficult subject one may even say divisive. As others have already mentioned no one wants to pay more tax than they need to in many cases we will do all that’s legal to reduce our tax bill ( that’s at least what I hope our accountants and tax advisor are paid to do) The trouble seems to start When we hear of people who are “on another level” financially and are able to structure there affairs in away they avoid any form of tax i.e. offshore accounts etc.

I am sure if we could all do this we would, this has been going on for years I worked in an industry (commercial property) where if you cared to take a look probably every shopping centre, iconic building you know of are held in offshore trusts paying no tax in the UK whatsoever. And these offshore funds range from the likes of the Rowntree’s Family to the Catholic Church and yes even some of your local councils (shock horror, oh yes and some councils even keep all their money in offshore bank accounts)

So, the tax ‘burden’ on the “general public” is probably what’s keeping us going and right now those in the middle are getting the biggest squeeze they have had for a long time. Slightly different maybe for those self-employed or company owners who can perhaps arrange their tax affairs in a more advantageous way.

What the answer is I do not know, a tax system that encourages those to hold more of their wealth / income in the UK at much lower rates of tax I might even then be able to see a dentist on the NHS.

However, this is probably going off the topic of this thread which I feel was more about the accountability of those in power, those making the rules that we are all obliged to follow and have little wriggle room to avoid. Whether this be attending parties, non-Dom status, green cards etc etc personally I just want them to have some morals and not treat us all as fools.

Is that too much to ask

Do away with most of our tax legislation. Tax ALL income at the same rate, dividends, interest, rent, everything which gives money to the individual or to a company. Merge NI into tax. Close ALL UK-related tax havens (Isle of Man, Jersey etc). Make all world-wide income taxable in the UK, offset by double taxation treaties between nations.

Next week I will deal with famine.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

no one wants to pay more tax than they need to in many cases we will do all that’s legal to reduce our tax bill ( that’s at least what I hope our accountants and tax advisor are paid to do)

It's of course perfectly legitimate to reduce our tax bills with legally-allowed adjustments/ allowances/etc.; the only question is whether claiming non-dom status was legal.

For all the defence of Akshata Murthy, I've seen plenty of arguments, from tax lawyers & professionals, expressing why this non-dom status is legally-questionable. The only counter argument I've seen is strawman arguments about these questions being racially-motivated, or personal attacks on people raising these legitimate questions - no explanations of how she could be properly entitled to non-dom status.


Karl Limpert

 

[WaveJumper]

That Steven Bartlett advert (at the top of my page) is quite spooky ....... those eyes

 

[Newchodge]

I agree. ‘Those who earn more, should pay more’

Erm, they already do. We have a thing called ‘income tax’!

But it applies differently to 'earned' income and all other income. I wonder why that is?

 

[MikeJ]

I agree nobody wants or typically will pay more tax than is absolutely necessary, but this case - of Akshata Murthy - is about the issue of claiming non-dom status - claiming that she does not, or does not intend to, live permanently in the UK. This claim being made at the same time as her family occupied a flat in Downing Street, her children going to school in the UK, and her husband holding one of the highest offices in the land (aspiring perhaps for even more).

If she had no intention of settling in the UK, as non-dom status implies, she had every right to claim non-dom. But the activities of her immediate family don't really support that argument - although it's not for us to judge, only to pass an opinion; Lord Geidt, or perhaps HMRC (... which happens to be controlled by her husband) will decide if the rules to apply for non-dom were appropriate.


The argument here is about tax avoidance, versus tax evasion. And as a spouse of a cabinet minister, any issues of potential conflict of interest.

(Why a spouse is included in the rules, as someone above asked, is not for us to say: it was our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, that signed that document, in August 2019.)


Karl Limpert

I had the same discussion with my brother the other day (he's ex-HMRC). I had no issue with her being a non-dom, but since they're married are we accepting that he's also not living in the UK permanently? If so, then I think it's reasonable for us to know that of an MP and a cabinet member.

His argument (and he's generally further to the left than I am) was we should consider tax on individuals, not based on their marital status.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

His argument (and he's generally further to the left than I am) was we should consider tax on individuals, not based on their marital status.

I believe the debate is about her tax status; Rishi Sunak only comes into the debate, as he was responsible for deciding the tax policies - policies that perhaps greatly benefited his family (but only if they were legitimately claimed).

More apparent "racism" - from the FT today - as they highlight questions about the previous non-dom status of Sajid Javid.


Karl Limpert

 

[IanSuth]

Do away with most of our tax legislation. Tax ALL income at the same rate, dividends, interest, rent, everything which gives money to the individual or to a company. Merge NI into tax. Close ALL UK-related tax havens (Isle of Man, Jersey etc). Make all world-wide income taxable in the UK, offset by double taxation treaties between nations.

Next week I will deal with famine.

I have long advocated for the harmonization of different tax rates such as income/cgt/corporation tax and a single individual earning allowance so there is less incentive to play around with creating umbrella companies and psc's etc.

I am convinced the money saved in both collecting the tax and for the vast majority in not needing to take any advice would be for the good of the country (except accountants)

As for non dom well in my view, companies should pay tax in the country where the activities that made that profit took place (easier said than done with all the wheezes re "licencing fees"), people should pay tax where they habitually reside on their earned and unearned income.

All that needs deciding is "habitual", in my view i would set a rule something like - If you are resident for greater than 6 months of the year for more than 5 years running then you are considered a resident, at that point you will become liable for UK income tax on all personal income (earned or unearned), if you declare you have left the UK we will want to see confirmation from the country you are now declaring you are a resident in that you are registerred to pay tax there. At that point all of your UK based assets will be considered a UK based business and taxed accordingly as a business.

 

[NickGrogan]

Please explain exactly which judicial decision (decision made by a judge) the legislature (Houses of Commons and Lords and their members) tried to undermine in those cases.

Was Lord Justice Taylor a judge? Was Andy Burnham a politician?

 

[Newchodge]

Was Lord Justice Taylor a judge? Was Andy Burnham a politician?

I don't understand the references. Yes to both, but what is the relevance? Which trial are you talking about?

 

[NickGrogan]

It's interesting that a lot of the issues seem to be around her husband's job. I thought we'd moved passed that.

Has the Chancellor made any changes to the non-dom rules since he came into power?

Can the Chancellor make changes to the tax laws without the agreement of parliament?

 

[gpietersz]

I agree with @NickGrogan she is not a politician or a British citizen so she should be free to manage her own affairs. If the Chancellor was a woman and her husband would it attract the same attention. It seems unfair that she should have to pay more tax than other people in the same position because her husband is a politician. The Rausig family have been non-dom for 40 years.

Sunak has not changed the rules, although the rules have been gradually tightened up over the last 14 years.

Can the Chancellor make changes to the tax laws without the agreement of parliament?

No, but budgets usually pass without too much fuss.

Its interesting that these laws have lasted so long. I also find it surprising that now that these laws have drawn so much attention, Labour is not comitting to abolishing them outright. The SNP could ask for non-dom status to be abolished for people living in Scotland.

All that said, I think OP was trolling. To benefit from non-dom status after seven years residence you need to more than £100k in income from foreign investments (so almost certainly have professional advisors), and as OP mentioned knowing about the annual charge, it should be obvious to them. The only point of the question was an excuse to discuss Sunak.

 

[Newchodge]

I agree with @NickGrogan she is not a politician or a British citizen so she should be free to manage her own affairs. If the Chancellor was a woman and her husband would it attract the same attention. It seems unfair that she should have to pay more tax than other people in the same position because her husband is a politician. The Rausig family have been non-dom for 40 years.

Sunak has not changed the rules, although the rules have been gradually tightened up over the last 14 years.

No, but budgets usually pass without too much fuss.

Its interesting that these laws have lasted so long. I also find it surprising that now that these laws have drawn so much attention, Labour is not comitting to abolishing them outright. The SNP could ask for non-dom status to be abolished for people living in Scotland.

All that said, I think OP was trolling. To benefit from non-dom status after seven years residence you need to more than £100k in income from foreign investments (so almost certainly have professional advisors), and as OP mentioned knowing about the annual charge, it should be obvious to them. The only point of the question was an excuse to discuss Sunak.

Why would we need an excuse to discuss Sunak?

 

[gpietersz]

But it applies differently to 'earned' income and all other income. I wonder why that is?

I never understood who people thought it was OK for unearned income to be taxed at a lower (much lower in the standard rate band) than unearned income.