Forum menu
it’s the laws we have lived by for decades
Given that his wife and therefore by extension he, will benefit from all those existing laws do you think Rishi is more or less likely to change them? Knowing what you know about his wife's wealth do you not think that makes his position difficult? Do you think we, as taxpayers have a right to know about the financial interests of his wife if they are affected by marginal tax rules that only a very very few have access to, and may influence her husbands behaviour?
Given that his wife and therefore by extension he, will benefit from all those existing laws do you think Rishi is more or less likely to change them? Knowing what you know about his wife’s wealth do you not think that makes his position difficult? Do you think we, as taxpayers have a right to know about the financial interests of his wife if they are affected by marginal tax rules that only a very very few have access to, and may influence her husbands behaviour?
You'd have to show me the actual policy or law, at present i do not believe there is one covering what you've stated above.
As stated on the previous page, his position is now untenable, he will move away in the coming weeks, not sure how or where, but can't see him really messing about on the back benches.
As for the tax rules, again, i do not believe he has influenced those which his wife benefits from, they were brought in decades ago, have been tweaked by New Labour, then by the Cameron Tories, to turn them into what they are now, an even simpler way of foreign individuals being able to hide their outside earnings from UK tax.
The reality is that you could remove Non-Dom status tomorrow, the rich will just reroute their outside earnings through other tax avoidance schemes, that's even if they want to actually bring those earnings into the UK. We had the Non-Dom arguments before though, Abramovich, Mittal, the Goldsmiths, etc, etc, i mean we had British born and bred individuals claiming Non-Dom through routes that make this issue look very vanilla.
the rich will just reroute their outside earnings through other tax avoidance schemes
Do you think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be...
a) trying to close such schemes
b) benefitting from such schemes
Conflict of interest concerning a Minister's spouse is covered by paragraph 7.3 of the Ministerial Code.
As for the tax rules, again, i do not believe he has influenced those which his wife benefits from, they were brought in decades ago, have been tweaked by New Labour, then by the Cameron Tories, to turn them into what they are now, an even simpler way of foreign individuals being able to hide their outside earnings from UK tax.
Non domciled individuals historically have never been charged to tax on anything other than a remittance basis for foreign income. Indeed the remittance basis applied to everyone when income tax was first introduced. This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced. There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak's wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
I saw a comment earlier on LinkedIn that Johnson has slowly eliminated all his main rivals for the job in an incredibly effective manner. He's probably incredibly lucky or he still has a Cummings-esque monster pulling some strings for him.
The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Not true. Non-dom is a choice, you can be fully resided here for taxes, wherever your father was born. Why is she a non-dom anyway? Why isn't she staying here on a permanent basis? Where is she going? When she goes, is she taking Rishi with her? So many questions...
There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Weird isn't it, when people think there's one rule for the super rich and another for everyone else?
It is obviously not Sunak wife's fault that she was born super rich and forced to claim that her home is on the other side of the world.
And that she doesn't need to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Or that Priti Patel isn't on her case and has her deported.
Why is she a non-dom anyway? Why isn’t she staying here on a permanent basis?
She claims that her billionaire father might one day need her to look after him.
Shame the law isn't so humane and understanding when it comes to the likes of the Windrush Generation.
Why is she a non-dom anyway?
Because her father is Indian. Losing a domicile of origin is something HMRC have been very reluctant to allow because they are much more worried about UK nationals going abroad than people coming here and that has always informed their policy.
Non domciled individuals historically have never been charged to tax on anything other than a remittance basis for foreign income. Indeed the remittance basis applied to everyone when income tax was first introduced. This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced. There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Yeah, you've put it a lot better than i have, i just remember when that 30k / 60k annual payment came out it was to give all those potentially 'evading' tax to claim this status and at least pay something.
As for Akshata Murthy, i know nothing about her, bar that nothing stated in the press is illegal, it's all within the tax rules within the UK. The flip side of the argument is that people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India on her earnings from her mainly Indian business and instead paying it here, it's just a weird argument.
Again, i have no side in this, i just get a little annoyed that there seems to be a real run of bad press on her, without anyone really knowing her financial business, and aiming their diatribe at her, instead of the actual laws and regulations that we have been hampered with for generations, there's been several areas of evasion and controversy on this status that's not even made a paper, funnily enough there's a couple of media moguls who are non-doms as well!
people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India
Cite one example of that.
Because her father is Indian.
No, that is part of the reason why she can claim to be a non-dom. The question is, why does she choose to be one? And if she isn’t staying, where is she going? Owning property and regularly visiting California suggests it might be there. Why does it matter? Because her husband is one of the main people running this country.
Or that Priti Patel isn’t on her case and has her deported.
Oh, that would be funny....
My wife is a Spanish nation, who also don't allow dual nationality and intents to return to Spain. She pays full UK tax. But then she isn't a millionaire.
Tax is for little people.
Maybe she would rather the Indian government got the taxes because they're less corrupt than bozo's circus.
This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced.
So, under two recent governments, the rules were tightened up, to reduce what was basically piss taking? Now, will they be further tightened by this government, while there is a non-dom living above number ten Downing Street? If so, will the changes be drawn up in a way that impacts on her and her millions? By her husband? Hmm… imagine the conversations going on over cocktails on the beach in California between this couple…
it’s all within the tax rules within the UK
Well yes but that just because something is legal doesnt mean you should do it. Despite the false claims otherwise there is nothing in Indian or UK law stopping her being tax resident here. Many other Indian citizens manage it.
The flip side of the argument is that people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India on her earnings from her mainly Indian business and instead paying it here
Its a weird argument because you just invented it.
Since we have a double tax agreement with India there would be no impact on the taxes paid to the Indian government from the Indian income. It would just be if the tax rate is higher in the UK then she would owe that amount.
I would note though given the careful wording of the statement about "international tax" I would be somewhat suspicious that other schemes are in place to minimise the tax due there though.
Again, i have no side in this
And yet you are busy defending her and announcing it is legal.
I would agree the problem is far larger than her. Its the issue that the "law" can be heavily influenced by people with deep pockets donating to the parties.
And yet you are busy defending her and announcing it is legal.
I'm giving counters to the she's richer than the queen so pay up, same with all the other arguments about why she should just pay over what she has too, just because of what her husband does.
It's the same with the arguments that Richi Sunak is currently sat there writing out the tax rules for his and his friends benefits, the man probably hasn't been near any of the computers or people who have written the policy, you want to see real areas of concern, check out how many secondee's from the big 4 accountancy firms have been in and around HMRC and the tax office in relation to writing and amending tax laws.
she's caved. She obviously fine with until it was exposed, now in the full light of day she looks like a right money grabbing shit. Too little to late to save the political future of your husband girl.
Sorry I am struggling to see your argument here. Is it just that others are worse?
I am quite aware of the fact the tax system has been taken over by the big 4 who benefit from more complex laws but thats not really an argument to ignore this particular case.
Looking at BBC breaking news it looks like even they have realised its not exactly a good look.
oH.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-tax-haven-b2054179.html?amp
Sorry I am struggling to see your argument here.
The argument is simple, she has followed the laws and regulations for tax purposes, could she pay more, well she has now, for no other reason than the hounding in the press, not because she legally had too. I'd guess she will be rearranging her affairs now to minimise the issues with this, i can't see Sunak being in office for much longer either, honestly can't understand why someone worth so much, who has so much would want to sit in this government and have their family put under this much scrutiny.
Wow someone really has it in for Sunak
who that could be 😉?
I wonder if we'll see more leaked pictures of lockdown busting garden parties snapped from Rishis balcony in retaliation 😂😂😂
she’s caved
I'm willing to bet she hasn't, they'll wait until it's all blown over and then be back to their tax-dodging ways. Yeah, maybe it's not strictly [b]illegal[/b] - much like most of the expenses scandal or the second homes flipping was technically illegal, it's just not a good look.
For me, it's just a matter of fairness and principle. She "earns" (gets given) tens of millions of pounds per year in dividends. That's more money than the average UK worker makes in a lifetime. It is literally more money than you can actually spend unless you are buying a new house every month. The right and fair thing to do on that is to pay what's due in tax, especially when you're telling the average UK worker to pay more tax and NI.
One rule for them, one for us - OK most of the tax avoidance stuff is available to the common people as well but when you're earning national average salary it's hardly worth the time to do that.
Does she even pay tax in India? How much of it will be squirreled away offshore in Mauritius or wherever.
Does she even pay tax in India? How much of it will be squirreled away offshore in Mauritius or wherever.
Nobody has a clue, all we know is she's non-domiciled, the rest is guesswork, but she's rich, so should pay more than she has too, like everyone else does.
why she should just pay over what she has too, just because of what her husband does
It's literally his job to decide "what she has toooo" pay, and what she can get away with not paying. That's the point you keep missing.
Anyway, she's made the right move, if they are to have any chance of staying living over number ten... never mind ever moving next door. I'd like to apologise about the cocktail jokes... I forgot that they don't drink. It'll be ice cold Mexican cokes on the beach in California.
No, that is part of the reason why she can claim to be a non-dom.
No it is a matter of fact, her domicile of origin is India, there is no question, no claim. it was automatic on her birth. The next question is whether she has acquired a domicile of choice and there is nothing to suggest she has. The attached article gives a basic outline of the law. I draw your attention to the section "2.2.1 Tenacity of Domicile of Original".
It’s literally his job to decide “what she has toooo” pay, and what she can get away with not paying. That’s the point you keep missing.
I don't miss it, i just don't see that he has written any tax laws to benefit her specifically, again, as stated earlier, the Chancellor is not someone who is sat there working out the intricacies of the tax law covering the UK to map out the best outcome for his wife, he is the figurehead of that department, he has a staff of thousands within those areas doing this, which then get passed through the house, voted on and brought in to law, as well as scrutinised by independent committees.
It's not a smear if it's entirely true Rishi!
frankconway
Full Member
ctk – what’s your problem?
You’re either trolling (unlikely) or are pushing an agenda.
Either way your posts aren’t worth reading
@frankconway 👍 Lovely post thankyou. I was both trolling and pushing an agenda.
The attached article gives a basic outline of the law. I draw your attention to the section “2.2.1 Tenacity of Domicile of Original”.
Thank you for that journey into the 18th century, or wherever it was that portal took me to.
I particularly liked :
“The term domicilium is derived from domum colere, to foster or inhabit the home. Domicile is not any place of residence but a place of habitual residence.”
So it turns out that Akshata Murty’s "place of habitual residence" is India.
I still can't believe that despite sunaks very expensive PR conpany/lawyers that they've been caught off guard by this
I can understand that he might not realise how nasty Johnson can be, but from an optics point of view he really is clueless
I still can’t believe that despite sunaks very expensive PR conpany/lawyers that they’ve been caught off guard by this
It's complicated being exceedingly wealthy.
Mo money mo problems...
So it turns out that Akshata Murty’s “place of habitual residence” is India.
Well that would be case if the law had stuck more to the original Latin meaning, but it developed as discussed in the essay to have a different definition. That said I appreciate a man of your background might be more comfortable looking to Rome and being sceptical of English innovations.
from an optics point of view he really is clueless
I think he got a bit giddy and thought that everybody loved him for his dazzling wit and charm, rather than because he was handing out free money and paying for your pizza.
Pretty much everything he’s done subsequently has been a disaster
Summed up nicely today by Marina…
You have to admit The Rishi Sunak Show is hilarious. The non-dom episode is the best yet
Some carefully worded comments being fed to the media… looks very much to me like non-dom status will be retained and this whole paying UK tax on all earnings thing is temporary while Rishi patches up his rep. Good tax planning in case of inheritance (which would likely be very big money) ?
I think he’s just living in that alternative world that rich people live in.
They look like us but are most definitely not,like the lizard overlords.
They slip up when having to do the mundane pleb tasks or forget that we don’t have a different car for each house we own.
looks very much to me like non-dom status will be retained and this whole paying UK tax on all earnings thing is temporary
Yep pay a little tax until the media furore blows over then back to business as usual.
I think that’s actually worse than sticking to the it’s legal defence.
Still Rishi Rich.
Big multinational. Pay tax on UK earnings, will she now be "employed" in a low tax state and have no UK earnings?
The inheritance tax is a doozy. I assume it's based on the nationality/state the deceased has. So to her from parents whatever is in India but from her down the non-dom means that even though houses, education and to a plebeian like me she looks like a UK citizen her estate will not be subject to UK inheritance tax
and this whole paying UK tax on all earnings thing is temporary
Yeah, it's just the price they're clearly willing to pay for what they think they'll get in return. If you think his wife's suddenly prepared to pay several millions to keep her husband in his £150K job, you really need to question why that might be.
I think that’s actually worse than sticking to the it’s legal defence.
I agree… but it could be enough to get this out of the media. I suspect many papers at least will jump on the opportunity to “move on”… not least the ones owned by a non-dom.
This distraction has clearly worked...a thread all about Boris and the last 2 and a bit pages have been about the chancellor...even in this place that likes to get so anally detailed on stuff, his power of distraction is strong...