Scrutable

Sunak is getting upset at what he believes to be the smearing of his wife:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61034496

Article states that Non Dom is a status granted to those who intend to return home...costs £30k per year (rising to £60k after 12 years) and that the status is lost after 15 years.

Obviously - the only people paying this are those who find it cheaper than paying tax.

I wonder what happens to those that stay beyond 15 years... do HMRC go after these individuals for unpaid tax in the prior years (given they didn't return home as intended).Sunak married in 2009 - I assume they've been living here since then (although shes declined to say when her non dom status began) so the good news is that if he follows his wife he'll be gone by 2024 at the latest... possibly before.

Unless, you know, strings get pulled and rules get changed for a politicians foreign wife... but surely that couldn't happen here...

Sunak himself apparently also got a Greencard - which requires attestation of the intent to live and work primarily in the United States - while Chancellor.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53783.html

dyqik wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:34 pm Sunak himself apparently also got a Greencard - which requires attestation of the intent to live and work primarily in the United States - while Chancellor.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53783.html

WTAF!!!!

The rules are for little people.

dyqik wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:34 pm Sunak himself apparently also got a Greencard - which requires attestation of the intent to live and work primarily in the United States - while Chancellor.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53783.html

That's not what the article says. It says:

Now Sky News reports claims that the Downing Street couple held US "green cards" permitting them residence in the United States until more than a year into his chancellorship.

Sunak did not get a green card while Chancellor - he retained one already held. And I don't see why people find it in the slightest bit difficult to imagine that someone born in Southampton to Indian parents who had emigrated from East Africa would have at some point intended to emigrate to America. Even more so for a woman born in India who was educated in America and met her future husband at Stanford. I thought it was only the right-wing loons that wanted everyone to stay where they were born.

Millennie Al wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:08 am

dyqik wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:34 pm Sunak himself apparently also got a Greencard - which requires attestation of the intent to live and work primarily in the United States - while Chancellor.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53783.html

That's not what the article says. It says:

Now Sky News reports claims that the Downing Street couple held US "green cards" permitting them residence in the United States until more than a year into his chancellorship.

Sunak did not get a green card while Chancellor - he retained one already held. And I don't see why people find it in the slightest bit difficult to imagine that someone born in Southampton to Indian parents who had emigrated from East Africa would have at some point intended to emigrate to America. Even more so for a woman born in India who was educated in America and met her future husband at Stanford. I thought it was only the right-wing loons that wanted everyone to stay where they were born.

Sorry, you think he went from "intending to live in America" to "Chancellor of the Exchequer" in a year or two?

Yes, I had misunderstood the headline a little. But you lose a Greencard as soon as you spend less than 180 days in the US in a calendar year unless you apply for exemption from that rule with the attestation I mentioned, and reasons why you are more closely tied to the US than any other country.

dyqik wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:12 pm Sorry, you think he went from "intending to live in America" to "Chancellor of the Exchequer" in a year or two?

You think that it's impossible to intend to work abroad for a long period with the intention of returning?

If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Because nothing shows commitment to you country as being able to run away at the drop of a hat. Just what you want in your politicians.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Moreover it actually breaks American laws as you can’t be a high ranking member of a foreign government and have a green card.

In other news investigation into who leaked this is started. I wonder if it will be as effective as the one tracking down the Matt Hancock leaker or the one over the leak Gavin Williamson was sacked for.

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status ... hqu0R3Cw8A

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:06 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Moreover it actually breaks American laws as you can’t be a high ranking member of a foreign government and have a green card.

In other news investigation into who leaked this is started. I wonder if it will be as effective as the one tracking down the Matt Hancock leaker or the one over the leak Gavin Williamson was sacked for.

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status ... hqu0R3Cw8A

Who would also want to hobble Javid, who was also a non-dom when chancellor
https://twitter.com/pimlicat/status/1512902092586946566

jimbob wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:14 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:06 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Moreover it actually breaks American laws as you can’t be a high ranking member of a foreign government and have a green card.

In other news investigation into who leaked this is started. I wonder if it will be as effective as the one tracking down the Matt Hancock leaker or the one over the leak Gavin Williamson was sacked for.

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status ... hqu0R3Cw8A

Who would also want to hobble Javid, who was also a non-dom when chancellor
https://twitter.com/pimlicat/status/1512902092586946566

If you read that again I think it was before he was chancellor.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:06 am In other news investigation into who leaked this is started.

Person doing obviously wrong thing is outed. Person quickly rectifies wrong thing.

Obviously, what we now need is an investigation into who leaked this wrong thing, a leak that was plainly in the public interest.

IvanV wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:53 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:06 am In other news investigation into who leaked this is started.

Person doing obviously wrong thing is outed. Person quickly rectifies wrong thing.

Obviously, what we now need is an investigation into who leaked this wrong thing, a leak that was plainly in the public interest.

I’ve lost the tweet but there’s a journalist saying one of his sources is saying that this inquiry will actually be pushed to find out anyone who requested the information. I know they may be looking for lefty remainers but the calls are coming from inside the house so to speak.

Also some criticism that Sunak’s wife’s promise may be meaningless https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/15 ... 1vErPnHueQ

1 non-dom doesn’t claim the remittance basis = taxed on all income

2 but not taxed on the income of an “excluded property trust” they created beforehand

The Independent reported that the Sunaks have an offshore trust. Is it an excluded property trust?

If it is, then Mrs Sunak’s pledge to pay UK tax on her income could be meaningless, ‘cause it could all be going into a trust, and so not be *her* income at all.

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:56 am

IvanV wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:53 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:06 am In other news investigation into who leaked this is started.

Person doing obviously wrong thing is outed. Person quickly rectifies wrong thing.

Obviously, what we now need is an investigation into who leaked this wrong thing, a leak that was plainly in the public interest.

I’ve lost the tweet but there’s a journalist saying one of his sources is saying that this inquiry will actually be pushed to find out anyone who requested the information. I know they may be looking for lefty remainers but the calls are coming from inside the house so to speak.

Here we go https://twitter.com/samfr/status/151308 ... 1vErPnHueQ

Oof. Rishi Sunak fighting back. Strong statement from source close to the Chancellor:

“This will be a more aggressive version of leak inquiries, where it will not only investigate who were the keepers of the sensitive information & who had access to that information, but also…

who, if anyone, requested to see it.

“The inquiry will be carried out with a view to potential criminal prosecutions because it is against the law to leak someone’s tax status.”

Another law suit for Private Eye then, they reported it a couple of months ago at least.

On a more general note

Top tip for any politician, if at any point you find yourself arguing "what I/we did was technically legal ..." you should start packing up your desktidy and begin fishing out the emergency chocolate bars and wraps of Charlie from the bottom drawer.

HTH.

it wasn't actually Stranger Mouse who wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:05 pmit is against the law to leak someone’s tax status.”

Is there a good reason why?

I'm struggling to think what downsides there might be to having tax status as transparently public information.

Plus full returns of politicians, officials (including royalty) and major political donors (over idk £100k).

Lots of countries are less financially secretive than the UK - what problems do countries with public tax info encounter?

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:19 pm
Lots of countries are less financially secretive than the UK - what problems do countries with public tax info encounter?

Well for a start it's a lot harder to hide that bung ol'Biggsy gave me for suggesting to Ozzie that that £125m contract for surgical gowns be punted towards Mrs Biggsy and her Etsy account.

Or the constant stream of money I've been getting from that Kremiln-linked "businessman" for my invaluable "consultancy" services.

So you can see the problem ...

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Akshata Murty is none of those.

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:40 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Akshata Murty is none of those.

But Sunak's household presumably benefits from these tax arrangements

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:40 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Akshata Murty is none of those.

Aren't we talking about Rishi Sunak's green card here?

jimbob wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 6:00 am

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:40 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Akshata Murty is none of those.

But Sunak's household presumably benefits from these tax arrangements

Ministerial code of conduct, two sections...

7.3 On appointment to each new office, Ministers must provide
their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests
which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should
also cover interests of the Minister’s spouse or partner and close
family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

7.7 Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual
or perceived conflict of interest between their Ministerial position
and their private financial interests. They should be guided by the
general principle that they should either dispose of the interest
giving rise to the conflict or take alternative steps to prevent it. In
reaching their decision they should be guided by the advice given
to them by their Permanent Secretary and the independent
adviser on Ministers’ interests. Ministers’ decisions should not be
influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with
17
a particular firm or organisation.

shpalman wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 6:47 am

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:40 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:39 am If an MP, yes it's impossible
If a cabinet minister, yes it's impossible
If Chancellor of the Exchequer, yes it's impossible

Akshata Murty is none of those.

Aren't we talking about Rishi Sunak's green card here?

Yes, yes we are.