Non Doms

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Non Doms

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:36 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:19 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:40 am
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.
Where does the law say people have a right not to be unpopular because of how they organise their taxes?

noggins
Fuzzable
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by noggins » Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:52 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:19 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:40 am
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.


What the actual f.ck does the unpopularity of Mrs Sunaks tax arrangements have to do with respect for the law?

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:16 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:31 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:34 am
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.
Not quite. non-dom is not a privilege, domicile is a burden. And the 15-year limit does not change your domicile, it merely affects your tax position.
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.
While it may be your view, it does not seem to be the view of HMRC who know rather a lot more about her situation that you or I do. If HMRC think she has incorrectly stated her domicile, they can challenge it. Here are the guildelines for the evidence they collect: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... /rdrm23080

Why do you think that someone who is only an Indian citizen and, presumably, has seen the "hostile environment" at work, must inevitably intend to stay for life? Since she is not a citizen, she is liable to be deported whenever the Home Office deems it appropriate, with the criteria getting more and more minor with each revision.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:19 am

noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:52 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:19 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:40 am
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.


What the actual f.ck does the unpopularity of Mrs Sunaks tax arrangements have to do with respect for the law?
You think that what is important is being popular. So does Boris.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:33 am

Sciolus wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:53 pm
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.
It may be difficult to simplify everything, but its quite easy to do a lot of simplification. Unfortunately, that would require an honest set of principles for taxation, which would be very difficult to agree. For example, a while ago there was controversy over Amazon and other multinationals and their tax. Many people claimed that they were paying too little tax because tax should be payable on the basis of where the economic activity takes place, and not the country of the company's owner. That would make a fine principle, but the current controversy over non-dom taxation has led many people to claim the exact opposite - that when an Indian company pays dividends the tax should fall due in the owner's country. Until 2020, India implemented the first principle - the dividend distribution tax was payable by the company distributing the dividend and the recipient had no tax liability. This was very simple and pretty much impossible to avoid by clever accounting.

VAT provides a good example of how a tax can have an underlying principle (tax the increase in value) which is practical and very hard to avoid without fraud and forgery. It also has the great benefit that a person who buys the same items for both personal and business use can correctly report the tax liability even if they don't know which use they will be put to at the time of purchase (unlike a sales tax).

However, I suspect that the biggest underlying problem with tax simplification is that the honest principles underlying much of it are greed and envy - things are taxed because they can be - not because there is any greater moral principle.

User avatar
individualmember
Catbabel
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by individualmember » Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:16 am

I’m going to betray my ignorance, but hey ho…
On the subject of where the payments are made, infosys is a global multinational. It was started in India forty years ago and has grown enormously, partly by buying other businesses in countries all around the world so to describe it as Indian is a bit like calling BP a British company, it’s a reference to its history, not the situation today. The shares are listed in London and New York, and I’m told that dividends are paid in the country where the shares are held. I could be misinformed of course but that would imply that “it’s an Indian company therefore the income is in India” is flawed.

noggins
Fuzzable
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by noggins » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:49 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:19 am
noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:52 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:19 pm


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


What the actual f.ck does the unpopularity of Mrs Sunaks tax arrangements have to do with respect for the law?
You think that what is important is being popular. So does Boris.
No, I think that I am entitled to judge people's character and suitability for public office on actions that they have carried out that are legal, but disagreeable to me. Stop being a contrarian tw.t.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3881
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Non Doms

Post by jimbob » Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:23 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:16 am
IvanV wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:31 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:34 am

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.
Not quite. non-dom is not a privilege, domicile is a burden. And the 15-year limit does not change your domicile, it merely affects your tax position.
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.
While it may be your view, it does not seem to be the view of HMRC who know rather a lot more about her situation that you or I do. If HMRC think she has incorrectly stated her domicile, they can challenge it. Here are the guildelines for the evidence they collect: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... /rdrm23080

Why do you think that someone who is only an Indian citizen and, presumably, has seen the "hostile environment" at work, must inevitably intend to stay for life? Since she is not a citizen, she is liable to be deported whenever the Home Office deems it appropriate, with the criteria getting more and more minor with each revision.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/15 ... XZShpRsg2A
Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
Normal
0%
Tax experts said that to have maintained non-dom status Javid would have had to assert he did not intend to live in UK indefinitely and furthermore demonstrate to HMRC that he had stronger “personal links” to the country of his chosen domicile than he did to the UK
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by IvanV » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:03 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:33 am
However, I suspect that the biggest underlying problem with tax simplification is that the honest principles underlying much of it are greed and envy - things are taxed because they can be - not because there is any greater moral principle.
There was a considerable push to put taxation on a consitent basis when Keith Joseph was chancellor. Since then it has mostly been downhill. The term "stealth tax" was invented for something Norman Lamont did, because he'd promised not to put tax up and needed some more money. Then things got really bad under Brown who was basically of the opinion that structure didn't matter very much. And no one since has tried to mend it. And then there was plenty of helping your rich mates out in recent governments. Osborne basically legalised the Luxembourg Swerve, though I think the EU forced him to undo that. I rather suspect that a lot of the "loopholes" are there because powerful people like them. Though of course the loopholes favoured by football players were plugged.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by IvanV » Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:33 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:16 am
... non-dom is not a privilege, domicile is a burden. And the 15-year limit does not change your domicile, it merely affects your tax position.
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.
While it may be your view, it does not seem to be the view of HMRC who know rather a lot more about her situation that you or I do. If HMRC think she has incorrectly stated her domicile, they can challenge it. Here are the guildelines for the evidence they collect: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... /rdrm23080

Why do you think that someone who is only an Indian citizen and, presumably, has seen the "hostile environment" at work, must inevitably intend to stay for life? Since she is not a citizen, she is liable to be deported whenever the Home Office deems it appropriate, with the criteria getting more and more minor with each revision.
More to the point would be detailed guidance on what "permanent home", the usual synonym given for "domicile", means. On a quick look, I didn't find any. The information they can ask for is meaningless without knowing precisely what it is they are trying to decide. They brought in these fixed fees for non-doms precisely because it seemed to be administratively easier just to take some money off them than enquire too closely. There's plenty of law-breaking people routinely get away with because it's too much like hard work to enforce it in the majority of cases - like speeding. Doesn't legalise it.

You talk about "for life" but that would be a silly and unenforceable rule. Herr, lehre doch mich, daß ein Ende mit mir haben muß... (The English version runs, Lord let me know mine end and the numbering of my days - but Brahms Requiem is my favourite.) I think you can be "permanently living" in one place, and then up and move. It's not about committing to it for life. In any other area of law where saying where you live matters, that idea seems to be accepted.

I'm pretty sure Mrs Sunak must have "permanent residence" here. If she didn't, she wouldn't be allowed in. They are seriously hot on refusing admission to overseas spouses if they haven't already arranged the proper resident status. You can't just come in as a tourist in that situation. It would be surprising if she lost residence, for all the hostile environment, even she got divorced, given how long she must have had that status now. It's the little people who suffer the random deportations without good reason, just because they can get away with it, it must sadly be said.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:50 am

noggins wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:49 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:19 am
noggins wrote:
Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:52 pm
What the actual f.ck does the unpopularity of Mrs Sunaks tax arrangements have to do with respect for the law?
You think that what is important is being popular. So does Boris.
No, I think that I am entitled to judge people's character and suitability for public office on actions that they have carried out that are legal, but disagreeable to me. Stop being a contrarian tw.t.
But Akshata Murty is not in, nor is she standing for, public office.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:07 am

jimbob wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:23 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:16 am
Why do you think that someone who is only an Indian citizen and, presumably, has seen the "hostile environment" at work, must inevitably intend to stay for life? Since she is not a citizen, she is liable to be deported whenever the Home Office deems it appropriate, with the criteria getting more and more minor with each revision.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/15 ... XZShpRsg2A
Jim Pickard
@PickardJE
Normal
0%
Tax experts said that to have maintained non-dom status Javid would have had to assert he did not intend to live in UK indefinitely and furthermore demonstrate to HMRC that he had stronger “personal links” to the country of his chosen domicile than he did to the UK
I'm not sure of the relevance of that. Here's a handy checklist so you can tell Akshata Murty and Sajid Javid apart:
  • Woman or man?
  • Indian or British?
  • Born in India or in England?
  • Not a politician or is a politician?
But, since you mentioned him, I'll address the situation of Sajid Javid. He was non-dom for six years ending in 2009 (see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... reer-sunak). Since he ceased being non-dom as soon as he moved to the UK in 2009, I don't see what's wrong with it. Note that he moved to New York in 1992. Given that he lived in different countries between 1992 and 2009 (i.e. about 17 years) and ended that period in Singapore, I don't see anything surprising about him being non-dom. It seems very likely that in 2009 he decided that he no longer wanted to make large sums of money and decided to become a politician.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:16 am

individualmember wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:16 am
I’m going to betray my ignorance, but hey ho…
On the subject of where the payments are made, infosys is a global multinational. It was started in India forty years ago and has grown enormously, partly by buying other businesses in countries all around the world so to describe it as Indian is a bit like calling BP a British company, it’s a reference to its history, not the situation today. The shares are listed in London and New York, and I’m told that dividends are paid in the country where the shares are held. I could be misinformed of course but that would imply that “it’s an Indian company therefore the income is in India” is flawed.
You are misinformed. Dividends are taxed in the country where the company is resident (which is not necessarily where it doesn much business - just as lots of American companies are registered iin Delaware regardless of where they actually operate). This reference shows the dividend tax by country: https://www.europeandgi.com/dividend-ta ... ted-states where you can see that the UK is the only country listed that does not tax dividends at source. The USA, for example levys a tax of 30%, but if you file form W-8BEN (which essentially states that you are neither American nor resident) it gets reduced to 15%. But it's more complicated than that as many countries have tax treaties, so if you're a UK taxpayer you get credit for the 15% offset against the tax you pay on receipt of the dividends.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:32 am

IvanV wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:33 pm
More to the point would be detailed guidance on what "permanent home", the usual synonym given for "domicile", means. On a quick look, I didn't find any. The information they can ask for is meaningless without knowing precisely what it is they are trying to decide. They brought in these fixed fees for non-doms precisely because it seemed to be administratively easier just to take some money off them than enquire too closely. There's plenty of law-breaking people routinely get away with because it's too much like hard work to enforce it in the majority of cases - like speeding. Doesn't legalise it.

You talk about "for life" but that would be a silly and unenforceable rule. Herr, lehre doch mich, daß ein Ende mit mir haben muß... (The English version runs, Lord let me know mine end and the numbering of my days - but Brahms Requiem is my favourite.) I think you can be "permanently living" in one place, and then up and move. It's not about committing to it for life. In any other area of law where saying where you live matters, that idea seems to be accepted.
Well, I would certainly agree it is a stupid distinction. I'd be in favour of making domicile irrelevant for tax purposes and taxing everyone on a remittance basis. But HMRC will have absolutely no sympathy for a taxpayer if there is a stupid rule requiring tax to be paid, so it's only fair that taxpayers do likewise in return - even more so considering that HMRC are on the side of the party that makes the rules.
I'm pretty sure Mrs Sunak must have "permanent residence" here. If she didn't, she wouldn't be allowed in. They are seriously hot on refusing admission to overseas spouses if they haven't already arranged the proper resident status. You can't just come in as a tourist in that situation. It would be surprising if she lost residence, for all the hostile environment, even she got divorced, given how long she must have had that status now. It's the little people who suffer the random deportations without good reason, just because they can get away with it, it must sadly be said.
I'm afraid I don't really know much about her personal circumstances, but every time I learn something new about immigration policy it turns out to be even more horrific than before. Even citizens can get deported, as the Windruch scandal proved. And it's not getting better.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by IvanV » Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:16 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:16 am
You are misinformed. Dividends are taxed in the country where the company is resident (which is not necessarily where it doesn much business - just as lots of American companies are registered iin Delaware regardless of where they actually operate). This reference shows the dividend tax by country: https://www.europeandgi.com/dividend-ta ... ted-states where you can see that the UK is the only country listed that does not tax dividends at source. The USA, for example levys a tax of 30%, but if you file form W-8BEN (which essentially states that you are neither American nor resident) it gets reduced to 15%. But it's more complicated than that as many countries have tax treaties, so if you're a UK taxpayer you get credit for the 15% offset against the tax you pay on receipt of the dividends.
[rant]And it's even more complicated than that. You pay some particular rate of tax on your overseas dividend. But the amount of that which you are allowed to offset against UK tax is not necessarily all of it, you have to go and find the bl..dy treaty and look it up. Because when you put USA in the drop down menu on your tax form, it doesn't look it up for you, when they could easily bl..dy do so at HMRC. I have quite a lot of US shares because I spent 13 years working for a US company with a share incentive scheme. Enough that I'm not allowed to fill in the simplified tax form for it. But like, only like double the amount I could fill in the simplified form for, so we are only talking about a few hundred pounds of dividend income here, not enough to retire on. So I know that for the USA it is 15% I pay and I can offset all of it, but only because I had to sodding find the double taxation treaty and look it up. But I also have some Spanish shares, because I used to be a customer of Abbey National and Santander bought them. I pay 19% on the income to the Spanish govt, but I'm only allowed to offset 15% against tax. It changed a few years ago, I used to be able to offset all of it.

And apparently the UK has announced it will start to charge a 10% withholding tax on dividends shortly.

And then, like many allowances, you can exhaust them. So there is actually some ferociously complicated calculation to work out whether you can actually have all of the offset. When I do my tax form it says, "Would you like to make the full calculation yourself of the amount of the offset that you can set against your tax, or will you accept our estimate of the offset? Our estimate is £0." It says that every year. The bastards. And they link you to an incredibly complicated calculation proforma, which is just a picture, not a calculation program, where I don't even know what most of the questions mean, though I expect they are a bunch of complications which are nothing to do with me. So, what I actually do, is say, "No I don't accept your estimate of £0", and I just write in the full amount at the offset rates out of the tax treaties, without doing the calculation. Doubtless this is all fair enough when you are rich and it is reasonable to pay a tax accountant to do it. But in my case I'm usually arguing about £300, which wouldn't even pay a tax accountant to even start looking at it. And it really pisses me off that HMRC should make things unnecessarily complicated and try to steal £200 a year off me. Because I'm only moderately prosperous, not rich.

Though I understand probably a lot of ordinary citizens who have incomes near the median, rather than being moderately prosperous like me and having some thousands of US shares due to some random stuff early in my career, who don't care less. Though they might do later when they get nearer to their retirement and are now in possession of some savings.[/rant]

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Non Doms

Post by dyqik » Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:17 pm

You could easily pay a tax accountant to look at that. A majority of US citizens and persons with US income use tax accountants to deal with their annual income tax returns.

Which is, of course, a hidden tax that directly funds the tax industry.

noggins
Fuzzable
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by noggins » Fri Apr 15, 2022 3:33 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:50 am
noggins wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:49 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:19 am


You think that what is important is being popular. So does Boris.
No, I think that I am entitled to judge people's character and suitability for public office on actions that they have carried out that are legal, but disagreeable to me. Stop being a contrarian tw.t.
But Akshata Murty is not in, nor is she standing for, public office.

And this makes me a Johnsonian law-disrespecting populist how exactly?

User avatar
individualmember
Catbabel
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by individualmember » Sat Apr 16, 2022 6:28 am

IvanV wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:16 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:16 am
You are misinformed. Dividends are taxed in the country where the company is resident (which is not necessarily where it doesn much business - just as lots of American companies are registered iin Delaware regardless of where they actually operate). This reference shows the dividend tax by country: https://www.europeandgi.com/dividend-ta ... ted-states where you can see that the UK is the only country listed that does not tax dividends at source. The USA, for example levys a tax of 30%, but if you file form W-8BEN (which essentially states that you are neither American nor resident) it gets reduced to 15%. But it's more complicated than that as many countries have tax treaties, so if you're a UK taxpayer you get credit for the 15% offset against the tax you pay on receipt of the dividends.
[rant]And it's even more complicated than that. You pay some particular rate of tax on your overseas dividend. But the amount of that which you are allowed to offset against UK tax is not necessarily all of it, you have to go and find the bl..dy treaty and look it up. Because when you put USA in the drop down menu on your tax form, it doesn't look it up for you, when they could easily bl..dy do so at HMRC. I have quite a lot of US shares because I spent 13 years working for a US company with a share incentive scheme. Enough that I'm not allowed to fill in the simplified tax form for it. But like, only like double the amount I could fill in the simplified form for, so we are only talking about a few hundred pounds of dividend income here, not enough to retire on. So I know that for the USA it is 15% I pay and I can offset all of it, but only because I had to sodding find the double taxation treaty and look it up. But I also have some Spanish shares, because I used to be a customer of Abbey National and Santander bought them. I pay 19% on the income to the Spanish govt, but I'm only allowed to offset 15% against tax. It changed a few years ago, I used to be able to offset all of it.

And apparently the UK has announced it will start to charge a 10% withholding tax on dividends shortly.

And then, like many allowances, you can exhaust them. So there is actually some ferociously complicated calculation to work out whether you can actually have all of the offset. When I do my tax form it says, "Would you like to make the full calculation yourself of the amount of the offset that you can set against your tax, or will you accept our estimate of the offset? Our estimate is £0." It says that every year. The bastards. And they link you to an incredibly complicated calculation proforma, which is just a picture, not a calculation program, where I don't even know what most of the questions mean, though I expect they are a bunch of complications which are nothing to do with me. So, what I actually do, is say, "No I don't accept your estimate of £0", and I just write in the full amount at the offset rates out of the tax treaties, without doing the calculation. Doubtless this is all fair enough when you are rich and it is reasonable to pay a tax accountant to do it. But in my case I'm usually arguing about £300, which wouldn't even pay a tax accountant to even start looking at it. And it really pisses me off that HMRC should make things unnecessarily complicated and try to steal £200 a year off me. Because I'm only moderately prosperous, not rich.

Though I understand probably a lot of ordinary citizens who have incomes near the median, rather than being moderately prosperous like me and having some thousands of US shares due to some random stuff early in my career, who don't care less. Though they might do later when they get nearer to their retirement and are now in possession of some savings.[/rant]
Thank you for your responses, I think I understand a lot better now. I notice that there’s a double taxation treaty between UK and India which came into force in 1994.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Non Doms

Post by IvanV » Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:40 pm

I see that Mrs Sunak has not renouced her non-dom status, or admitted that she is UK domiciled for tax purposes, she is just volunteering to pay tax on her non-UK income, for the time being. It has been suggested that this might not be very much, depending how she has organised her affairs. And she has left open to herself the possibility of reasserting her non-dom status when convenient. Maybe for example if Mr Sunak were to cease to be a minister.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Non Doms

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:48 pm

Off topic but apparently Lord Ashcroft’s daughter is in a spot of bother https://www.thedailybeast.com/lord-ashc ... ing-set-up
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

User avatar
basementer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1336
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
Location: 5713, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Non Doms

Post by basementer » Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:56 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:48 pm
Off topic but apparently Lord Ashcroft’s daughter is in a spot of bother https://www.thedailybeast.com/lord-ashc ... ing-set-up
Daughter-in-law.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell

Post Reply