Non Doms

[dyqik]

Oh get off your crosses.

Sunak is a tory and any dirt that reduces the tory vote is good dirt.

Mercenary nationality arbitrage is fair game .

I'm a dual national, but I'm not officially resident in one country and in the government of another.

And like me, you probably pay all the tax you owe in the country where you reside and earn your main income.

[monkey]

Tweet from Alistair Campbell:

Text from one of my few Tory MP friends …. ‘An Englishman, an Indian and an American walk into a bar … “usual, Mr Sunak?” says the barman.’

This joke says nothing about using residency/nationality to avoid taxes, it's just anti-migrant. It's suggesting there's something wrong about having multiple nationalities, which is not the part that people should be angry about.

[noggins]

The joke is specifically about Sunak.

You can tell this because his name is the punchline.

[monkey]

The joke is specifically about Sunak.

You can tell this because his name is the punchline.

I am not against mocking Sunak. I am against mocking him in this way.

Do jokes about tax dodging, not jokes that question his identity.

[Woodchopper]

The joke is specifically about Sunak.

You can tell this because his name is the punchline.

I am not against mocking Sunak. I am against mocking him in this way.

Do jokes about tax dodging, not jokes that question his identity.

Mmmm. I appreciate what you're saying. But it seems to me that the crux of the criticism of Sunak is that he and his wife have cynically adopted several different legal identities in order to further enrich themselves. Its all about identity.

[Martin_B]

Oh get off your crosses.

Sunak is a tory and any dirt that reduces the tory vote is good dirt.

Mercenary nationality arbitrage is fair game .

I'm a dual national, but I'm not officially resident in one country and in the government of another.

Quite a lot of Australian MPs fell foul of being dual nationality about 6 years ago. In Oz, dual nationality bars you from holding any elected office (and effectively bars you from running for office).

[noggins]

Well yeah, the ozzies have a rod up their yokel arses about dual nationality.

[dyqik]

Well yeah, the ozzies have a rod up their yokel arses about dual nationality.

Some of that comes of an independence movement in a country dominated by immigration from one country.

See also the US Constitution's requirement that the president be born in the United States.

[FlammableFlower]

Tweet from Alistair Campbell:

Text from one of my few Tory MP friends …. ‘An Englishman, an Indian and an American walk into a bar … “usual, Mr Sunak?” says the barman.’

This joke says nothing about using residency/nationality to avoid taxes, it's just anti-migrant. It's suggesting there's something wrong about having multiple nationalities, which is not the part that people should be angry about.

I was more interested in the purported sender to Campbell.

[noggins]

You don't have to be born in the US to be president, you have to be born a US citizen. The birthers were clutching at straws even if Obama really had been born in Kenya.

[dyqik]

You don't have to be born in the US to be president, you have to be born a US citizen. The birthers were clutching at straws even if Obama really had been born in Kenya.

Sorry, yes.

[noggins]

To think, once I was in favour of that rule, to keep the US from doing something daft like electing unqualified populist rightwinger Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Presidency.

[dyqik]

To think, once I was in favour of that rule, to keep the US from doing something daft like electing unqualified populist rightwinger Arnold Schwarzenegger to the Presidency.

He's probably too left-wing for half the states. But not the ones with biggest EC representation.

Anyway, that same rule prevents them from electing someone I definitely don't trust with the presidency.

Me.

[bjn]

Oh get off your crosses.

Sunak is a tory and any dirt that reduces the tory vote is good dirt.

Mercenary nationality arbitrage is fair game .

I'm a dual national, but I'm not officially resident in one country and in the government of another.

And like me, you probably pay all the tax you owe in the country where you reside and earn your main income.

I’ve also turned down the idea of opening up off shore tax dodging trusts as proposed by various financial advisors.

[Millennie Al]

That's because the attack is a personal attack of malice and envy.

Malice and envy? That's not how I feel about it:

Yes, but read carefully what you wrote and then compare that to the articles in the news. You talk about principles, merely inspired by specific examples, but many others are clearly focussed on the individuals and the principles are a side-issue. In particular, consider why there was a leak in the first place - do you think it is at all credible that it was done by a principled person to stimulate discussion about tax principles, or that it was done as a way of attacking Rishi Sunak as an individual?

I don't feel any personal malice, far less envy, towards Rishi Sunak in person. In fact, I was pleased to see the Conservatives embracing diversity a bit more, as a general principle. But I do still think his situation is problematic.
In general, I feel uncomfortable about extremely rich politicians making policies which affect millions of poor people. I fear that their lack of familiarity and experience of life in poverty, and their educational privilege, may lead them to superficial and prejudiced decisions which cruelly affect lives of the disadvantaged.

I can see why that is a valid point, but it's not the only one. We should have leaders who are competent - both through being intelligent and through having experience. Running a country is a bit like running a very large corporation. But it's not at all like managing your personal affairs or running a small business. In a small business, you can personally know every employee and know where all the costs and profits are. In a large corporation you may not even meet all employees. Certainly you'll know only a little about most of them - maybe a major accomplishment or two. You need to be able to manage by delegating and trusting your subordinates approriately - not so little that they can get away with major fraud, yet not so much that it overwhelms you. Consequently, I'd like our leaders, and especially the Chancellor, to have experience in dealing with big organisations and large sums of money. The pool of such people is limited - especially why you take into account that serving in government costs them a lot of money. If you also want them to have ecxperiences poverty, the pool is exceedingly small, and such people cannot be guaranteed to be sympatetic to the poor. Instead, there's the risk that they have the attitude that if they could start from nothing then so could anyone else, so the poor are just lazy and undeserving.

In some ways, that seems worse if that extremely rich person is not even committed to the country involved on a long term basis. I fully appreciate that many people these days are nomads, and that's fine. But again I would like a person making decisions with long term impacts on a society, to have some long term relationship to these impacts.

Really? IIt's perfectly rouutine for a global mega-corporation to employ people in the most senior levels who, while loyal and diligent during their employment, are not expected to stay for life. It'a also very common for board members to be on the boards of other companies. Far from this being seen as a problem, it is seen as an asset. Maybe we should require a small proportion of MPs to concurrently serve in other countries.

And if you really do want MPs to have long term relationships with the country, presumably you would then force an MP to resign if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness?

Finally, I expect all politicians to be scrutinised over decision making which may affect their immediate family members.
Rishi Sunak causes me problems on all three of these aspects.

How in this aspect? I thought the main complaint was about his wife's non-dom status which was nothing to do with him as the non-dom rules were set down long before he was involved.

[Millennie Al]

The problem in general with tax issues, or at least as they have been constructed in this country, is the vexed distinction between what's legal and what's reasonable.

That's for the lawmakers to fix. If Parliament cannot clearly express the tax rules, nobody should be expected to obey them - similar to the contra proferentem rule in civil contracts.

It's sufficiently difficult distinction that British tax law now has provisions that otherwise legal arrangements become illegal if they are "artificial" arrangements, or are circular movements of money. In other words, the rules for what is legal so are inherently prone to "misuse", and the best they can think of to exclude some of that "misuse" are subjective assessments of what is "artificial".

Yet the rules hypocritically can also impose an artificial and arbitrary interpretation when it suits them - as with Section 104 rules for CGT.

The fact that even the law, in effect, says that it is illegal to "misuse" legal tax privileges in an "artificial" way, seemingly makes it reasonable for people to point out that Mrs Sunak appeared to be "misusing" a legal tax privilege in an unreasonable way.

Except the non-dom rules were designed specifically to have the effect she was using them for. This is not a "loophole" that she was exploiting. Presumably her critics equally object to ISAs and other mechanisms designed and intended to reduce tax?

She seems to have agreed, in bringing the arrangement immediately to an end as soon as it was publicised.

She has agreeed in the same way that you might agree to hand over your wallet to someone threatening you in a dark alley.

Though, as has also been pointed out, it is straightforward even for the domiciled super-rich to limit their tax bills in a way we little people can't.

That cuts both ways - those of us who are not super rich have no need of ways to avoid paying tha taxes that we already don't pay due to not having enough income or whatever.

that Lord Ashcroft agreed to end his non-dom status when elevated to the Lords, and didn't - or at least not for an extended period - although he tried to keep it under wraps.

The rules were changed so that members of Parliament cannot be non-dom (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 - part 4). Some lords left the House of Lords to retain their non-dom status, but he didn't.

[noggins]

So basically you want Mrs Sunak to be allowed to have tax arrangements that are legal but unpopular, without Mr Sunak suffering politically for that unpopularity ?

My f.cking heart pumps piss for them.

[Bird on a Fire]

To be fair, it must be difficult for them already, what with him living in London and the US and her living in India. Long distance is complicated.

[IvanV]

The problem in general with tax issues, or at least as they have been constructed in this country, is the vexed distinction between what's legal and what's reasonable.

That's for the lawmakers to fix. If Parliament cannot clearly express the tax rules, nobody should be expected to obey them - similar to the contra proferentem rule in civil contracts.

I tend to agree with that. They shouldn't introduce rules so prone to misuse that they have to have subjective anti-misuse provisions. I presume there are political reasons they don't want to fix that.

The fact that even the law, in effect, says that it is illegal to "misuse" legal tax privileges in an "artificial" way, seemingly makes it reasonable for people to point out that Mrs Sunak appeared to be "misusing" a legal tax privilege in an unreasonable way.

Except the non-dom rules were designed specifically to have the effect she was using them for. This is not a "loophole" that she was exploiting.

Really? When you claim non-dom status, you are saying that your permanent home is in another country.

I think I view the 15 year limit differently from you. I think you are saying it is the privilege of someone coming from another country to have 15 years non-dom status. Whereas my view would be that after 15 years it is brought automatically to an end on the grounds that by that point you are taking the piss. That would be my view of Mrs Sunak. 15 years was not her privilege, rather it would be the point at which they would automatically decide you were taking the piss. In her case, she was already taking the piss.

Presumably her critics equally object to ISAs and other mechanisms designed and intended to reduce tax?

As I said, I view the 15 years of non-dom in a different way from the strictly limited - in quantity - tax privilege of an ISA. ISAs are what I always quote when someone mentions the "doing something for no reason other than to avoid tax" definition of artificial tax arrangements.

[jimbob]

The problem in general with tax issues, or at least as they have been constructed in this country, is the vexed distinction between what's legal and what's reasonable.

That's for the lawmakers to fix. If Parliament cannot clearly express the tax rules, nobody should be expected to obey them - similar to the contra proferentem rule in civil contracts.

I tend to agree with that. They shouldn't introduce rules so prone to misuse that they have to have subjective anti-misuse provisions. I presume there are political reasons they don't want to fix that.

The fact that even the law, in effect, says that it is illegal to "misuse" legal tax privileges in an "artificial" way, seemingly makes it reasonable for people to point out that Mrs Sunak appeared to be "misusing" a legal tax privilege in an unreasonable way.

Except the non-dom rules were designed specifically to have the effect she was using them for. This is not a "loophole" that she was exploiting.

Really? When you claim non-dom status, you are saying that your permanent home is in another country.

I think I view the 15 year limit differently from you. I think you are saying it is the privilege of someone coming from another country to have 15 years non-dom status. Whereas my view would be that after 15 years it is brought automatically to an end on the grounds that by that point you are taking the piss. That would be my view of Mrs Sunak. 15 years was not her privilege, rather it would be the point at which they would automatically decide you were taking the piss. In her case, she was already taking the piss.

Presumably her critics equally object to ISAs and other mechanisms designed and intended to reduce tax?

As I said, I view the 15 years of non-dom in a different way from the strictly limited - in quantity - tax privilege of an ISA. ISAs are what I always quote when someone mentions the "doing something for no reason other than to avoid tax" definition of artificial tax arrangements.

Nicely put,

Whereas my view would be that after 15 years it is brought automatically to an end on the grounds that by that point you are taking the piss. That would be my view of Mrs Sunak. 15 years was not her privilege, rather it would be the point at which they would automatically decide you were taking the piss. In her case, she was already taking the piss.

[Gfamily]

As I said, I view the 15 years of non-dom in a different way from the strictly limited - in quantity - tax privilege of an ISA. ISAs are what I always quote when someone mentions the "doing something for no reason other than to avoid tax" definition of artificial tax arrangements.

The ISA does have a broader use though, in that it gives a positive incentive for people to consider putting away savings (where they can) in places other than just a deposit account.
The use of ISAs (and National Savings) for investments removes the obligation on the Tax Payer to have to go down the route of Self Assessment as well, which could be a disincentive for many.

So, I would say that it's completely different to other tax reduction strategies.

[IvanV]

As I said, I view the 15 years of non-dom in a different way from the strictly limited - in quantity - tax privilege of an ISA. ISAs are what I always quote when someone mentions the "doing something for no reason other than to avoid tax" definition of artificial tax arrangements.

The ISA does have a broader use though, in that it gives a positive incentive for people to consider putting away savings (where they can) in places other than just a deposit account.
The use of ISAs (and National Savings) for investments removes the obligation on the Tax Payer to have to go down the route of Self Assessment as well, which could be a disincentive for many.

So, I would say that it's completely different to other tax reduction strategies.

Yes to all that.

[jimbob]

As I said, I view the 15 years of non-dom in a different way from the strictly limited - in quantity - tax privilege of an ISA. ISAs are what I always quote when someone mentions the "doing something for no reason other than to avoid tax" definition of artificial tax arrangements.

The ISA does have a broader use though, in that it gives a positive incentive for people to consider putting away savings (where they can) in places other than just a deposit account.
The use of ISAs (and National Savings) for investments removes the obligation on the Tax Payer to have to go down the route of Self Assessment as well, which could be a disincentive for many.

So, I would say that it's completely different to other tax reduction strategies.

Indeed, it is a tool designed to encourage a specific behaviour with tax incentives, as opposed to an in attempt to define the borders of fair tax liability.

[Sciolus]

The problem in general with tax issues, or at least as they have been constructed in this country, is the vexed distinction between what's legal and what's reasonable.

That's for the lawmakers to fix. If Parliament cannot clearly express the tax rules, nobody should be expected to obey them - similar to the contra proferentem rule in civil contracts.

I tend to agree with that. They shouldn't introduce rules so prone to misuse that they have to have subjective anti-misuse provisions. I presume there are political reasons they don't want to fix that.

The difficulty is that tax legislation is exceedingly complex; whether it could be simplified to a few unambiguous pages is doubtful, especially for multinational entities. Given that the super-rich are much better at finding loopholes and inventing avoidance schemes than civil servants are at closing them, the best you can do is express the intent and let courts judge on the facts of a given case whether that intent is met.

[Millennie Al]

So basically you want Mrs Sunak to be allowed to have tax arrangements that are legal but unpopular, without Mr Sunak suffering politically for that unpopularity ?

My f.cking heart pumps piss for them.

You must have the same respect for the law that Boris Johnson has. He thinks that the law doesn't really matter either.