Scrapping non dom status
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Mrr T said:
PH pedantry. If your not resident in the UK you are also not domiciled in the UK.
Non-dom is a UK tax law that allows you to be resident in the UK but not domiciled.
Not a tax guru but do have some reasonable tax knowledge.Non-dom is a UK tax law that allows you to be resident in the UK but not domiciled.
If your not resident then you are not domiciled. As an example if your not resident you are not taxable on non UK income or for inheritance in the UK. Non dom status is a uniquely UK tax law where you are UK resident but only UK taxable on income brought into the UK and not subject to inheritance tax on non UK assets.
You can only be a non dom if your a UK resident
However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
Edited by GT03ROB on Tuesday 25th June 04:59
Hants PHer said:
Mrr T said:
Not a tax guru but do have some reasonable tax knowledge.
If your not resident then you are not domiciled. As an example if your not resident you are not taxable on non UK income or for inheritance in the UK. Non dom status is a uniquely UK tax law where you are UK resident but only UK taxable on income brought into the UK and not subject to inheritance tax on non UK assets.
You can only be a non dom if your a UK resident
Sorry but I think your [sic] second sentence shows that you're [sic] wrong. It's perfectly possible for a UK citizen to be non-resident but retain UK domicile. It's exactly what happens when a UK citizen goes off to work overseas for a while, with the intention of returning to the UK after their foreign stint ends.If your not resident then you are not domiciled. As an example if your not resident you are not taxable on non UK income or for inheritance in the UK. Non dom status is a uniquely UK tax law where you are UK resident but only UK taxable on income brought into the UK and not subject to inheritance tax on non UK assets.
You can only be a non dom if your a UK resident
However, your other sentences are correct I think.
For the poster who suggested I was googling my answers in the background. He's wrong. Since I will no longer be a UK tax resident in a couple of months my googling, and taking professional advice, was done about a year ago. Since I have sold my UK house and do not intent to return I will no longer be UK domiciled for IT and CGT as well. I will be UK domiciled for IHT for the next five years.
I did not move for tax reasons.
GT03ROB said:
Ok I see where you are coming from in terms of "not" vs. "non". You are clearly using the the "t" & "n" to differentiate
However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
I was planning to end with the post above but then saw your post.However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
Edited by GT03ROB on Tuesday 25th June 04:59
When you say you are not UK tax resident but you are UK domiciled. Is your view of your domicile just your view because you plan to return to the UK at some time? Because your tax domicile is dependant on the tax law of the country you are resident in and any double tax treaty. For most tax purposes domicile would only matter if you have income or gains in countries your not tax resident. If your UK domiciled these would be taxed in the UK if your domiciled in the same country as your tax residency they would be taxed there. So are you confident your UK tax domiciled?
Domicile for IHT is a statutory test. You are deemed UK domiciled for IHT if you have either had a permanent home in the UK in the last 3 years or lived in the UK for15 of the last 20 years. Even if not UK domiciled UK property and bank accounts are subject to IHT.
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 25th June 07:26
Greenmantle said:
I think you are all forgetting that there has never been the need to encourage rich people to come and live in London. They have been doing it for decades. This is not because of our non-dom status but because of our language and the relative safety of the UK. To that end we should tax that privilege and see how they react.
We do tax that privilege already. We charge them an additional charge on top of paying U.K. tax on their U.K. income.NRS said:
Basically if everyone is more evenly rewarded for work it will help more people, instead of the few at the top who hoover ever more up. Just look at the stats, Covid made it even worse.
This is whats wrong with our country. The government has been slowly.but surely destroying our country and our economy. Now people are getting squeezed they want an easy fix which doesn't hurt them personally. I know lots tax the Rich. They should pay their share. But why is it fair that their share is way way more than the share you are paying. Its simple, you want to pay less or not more but you understand the government needs more money so get it off the Rich.The government, I don't care which party is in power they're all useless, have been spending way way more than they get in every year. So why do you think that situation would reverse if they had a bit more money from the Rich.
It wouldn't.
They will simply keep spending more and more evey year. We will keep getting squeezed and squeezed. Once the Rich and no longer Rich will you feel better because that's fair. Or will you he annoyed when the government have ran out of ways to find more tax to waste so they start coming after You.
Instead of us discussing where the government can get more money but not from Us we should be discussing how we get the government to spend less. The sooner we start getting the government to spend less the sooner we will all be better off.
Did Covid make it worse or did the government's ridiculous actions of throwing money at everyone make it worse.
News Flash
When the government starts giving everyone bail outs we all have to pay for it. Tax the Rich?
All this increase in the cost of living is a direct result of rhe government's response to Covid. Tax the Rich.
No
Tell the government to stop being stupid.
Tell the government to spend less.
Tell the government we're not having it.
The government thinks there is an endless amount of money they can spend and no one will complain. Tax the Rich just don't tax Us.
Ridiculous
I guess you missed a follow up post where I am lucky enough to be one of the lucky ones who are very well paid compared to most people? It’s not a ‘tax them’ - it’s mostly not even a tax the rich more point. The issue is growing inequality where CEO’s and similar are earning far more compared to the average worker than they used to, and then are rewarded for stuff like share buybacks instead of real growth as it increases the share price and their dividends/bonuses which are typically share price related and so on. If we stopped chopping tax and fighting each other with lower tax rates over time to try and get these people then more people would be better off, and we’d have more people earning a bit better and so more tax from them.
It’s not politics of envy, I’m pretty right wing in many ways. But the current system isn’t benefiting society, it’s a system that has killed growth and real wage improvements for most people for decades. I’m just surprised at the amount of people who believe more of the same is the way to go, given the results of what we see when companies and rich people like me are taxed less (% wise) than many normal wage jobs, and the ones at the bottom have no tax either due to them not earning enough to pay it. We’ve gone too far in giving capital all the power, the same as we used to have major issues when the labour part of the economy had too much power and shut everything down with strikes and the like. When the system goes too far one way or the other it creates a lot of issues.
ATM said:
NRS said:
Basically if everyone is more evenly rewarded for work it will help more people, instead of the few at the top who hoover ever more up. Just look at the stats, Covid made it even worse.
This is whats wrong with our country. The government has been slowly.but surely destroying our country and our economy. Now people are getting squeezed they want an easy fix which doesn't hurt them personally. I know lots tax the Rich. They should pay their share. But why is it fair that their share is way way more than the share you are paying. Its simple, you want to pay less or not more but you understand the government needs more money so get it off the Rich.The government, I don't care which party is in power they're all useless, have been spending way way more than they get in every year. So why do you think that situation would reverse if they had a bit more money from the Rich.
It wouldn't.
They will simply keep spending more and more evey year. We will keep getting squeezed and squeezed. Once the Rich and no longer Rich will you feel better because that's fair. Or will you he annoyed when the government have ran out of ways to find more tax to waste so they start coming after You.
Instead of us discussing where the government can get more money but not from Us we should be discussing how we get the government to spend less. The sooner we start getting the government to spend less the sooner we will all be better off.
Did Covid make it worse or did the government's ridiculous actions of throwing money at everyone make it worse.
News Flash
When the government starts giving everyone bail outs we all have to pay for it. Tax the Rich?
All this increase in the cost of living is a direct result of rhe government's response to Covid. Tax the Rich.
No
Tell the government to stop being stupid.
Tell the government to spend less.
Tell the government we're not having it.
The government thinks there is an endless amount of money they can spend and no one will complain. Tax the Rich just don't tax Us.
Ridiculous
I'm sure telling the government to "stop being stupid" or "spend less" hasn't ever been thought of in the past.....
In practice virtually every new government has tried to be more efficient or do some sort of review into spending. Most things are done for a reason typically because not doing them caused a worse outcome in the past, most departments have a day job that people are screaming at them to do 24/7 and they can't stop doing that day job.
We have had 14 years of real terms cuts across multiple departments and tiers of government. The problem with doing that is that the effects take some time to appear as stuff starts breaking down and then the cost savings are illusory as temporary and sticking plaster solutions start costing more. See people stuck in expensive hospital beds because they weren't seen soon enough or can't be sent to care places or locum doctors because we didn't train enough doctors 15 years ago.
The public realm is in a state, in terms of a fix there is a certain amount that will happen due to "animal spirt" being injected into both the civil service and the wider economy just by kicking the current shower out. There is a certain amount they can do by just approving a load investments in energy and infrastructure that are ready to go. There is whole lot that can be done by reforming planning and environmental legislation and providing enough certainty that the private sector invests. The new government can do this because of their likely massive mandate and because they aren't distracted by as much petty stuff like sending people to Rwanda or other culture wars stuff.
However beyond that a whole load of money does need to be spent to fix stuff today, given that quantitative easing and furlough resulted in direct transfers of assets to wealthy people it makes good sense to increase the amount of taxation levied on assets in such a way that predominantly the very wealthy pay for it.
Mrr T said:
GT03ROB said:
Ok I see where you are coming from in terms of "not" vs. "non". You are clearly using the the "t" & "n" to differentiate
However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
I was planning to end with the post above but then saw your post.However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
Edited by GT03ROB on Tuesday 25th June 04:59
When you say you are not UK tax resident but you are UK domiciled. Is your view of your domicile just your view because you plan to return to the UK at some time? Because your tax domicile is dependant on the tax law of the country you are resident in and any double tax treaty. For most tax purposes domicile would only matter if you have income or gains in countries your not tax resident. If your UK domiciled these would be taxed in the UK if your domiciled in the same country as your tax residency they would be taxed there. So are you confident your UK tax domiciled?
Domicile for IHT is a statutory test. You are deemed UK domiciled for IHT if you have either had a permanent home in the UK in the last 3 years or lived in the UK for15 of the last 20 years. Even if not UK domiciled UK property and bank accounts are subject to IHT.
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 25th June 07:26
https://www.aesadviser.com/2024/02/losing-uk-domic...
Talksteer said:
given that quantitative easing and furlough resulted in direct transfers of assets to wealthy people it makes good sense to increase the amount of taxation levied on assets in such a way that predominantly the very wealthy pay for it
I disagree The higher rate tax band was probably brought in to only tax the wealthier and now more and more people are paying it. I believe any tax changes for the wealthy will always trickle down to Us. The government will keep squeezing everything and everyone while slowly [ or quickly ] but surely ruining the economy.
The problem with over spending is over spending. The solution isn't more taxation.
NRS said:
I guess you missed a follow up post where I am lucky enough to be one of the lucky ones who are very well paid compared to most people? It’s not a ‘tax them’ - it’s mostly not even a tax the rich more point. The issue is growing inequality where CEO’s and similar are earning far more compared to the average worker than they used to, and then are rewarded for stuff like share buybacks instead of real growth as it increases the share price and their dividends/bonuses which are typically share price related and so on. If we stopped chopping tax and fighting each other with lower tax rates over time to try and get these people then more people would be better off, and we’d have more people earning a bit better and so more tax from them.
Non-Doms are neither fish nor foul in this debate, it's going to create long term damage to London and the whole of the UK will end up poorer as a result.
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
There's not enough CEOs for it to make much difference , CEOs are not the problem, you are highlighting a key problem with the tax debate , people on the left say 'tax the rich' but they actually mean anyone in the 40%+ bands, people on the right say 'fill yer boots' and Sunak pays less tax than I do as he is not a CEO. In the interim its the person in the middle (me) that gets continually done over.
Non-Doms are neither fish nor foul in this debate, it's going to create long term damage to London and the whole of the UK will end up poorer as a result.
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Again you reply to something I never said. We need to make there be less of a difference between rich and poor where a smaller number of people earn far more than others over time. If that money was more evenly spread amongst the workforce instead of some jobs having massively increasing pay relative to the rest it will help. It will mean a lot more people earn a bit extra, so the people in the middle have more income and tax rates can be more equal. The combination of increasing equality with a smaller number of people taking more of the profits, combined with them bouncing countries to get the lower tax rates means the people in the middle have to pay more tax to make up for a) the lower tax rates paid at the top and b) less profits being spread between the people in the middle who pay the highest tax rates. So with growing equality and dropping tax rates to keep the rich in the UK results in your higher tax rates. Same goes for companies hiding/offshoring profits via stuff like paying made up prices between companies within the same groups to get rid of profits on paper etc. As they pay less tax someone else has to make it up - that’s the workers in the middle as big companies and rich people avoid a lot of the taxes, and those at the bottom don’t earn enough to contribute.Non-Doms are neither fish nor foul in this debate, it's going to create long term damage to London and the whole of the UK will end up poorer as a result.
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
markh1973 said:
Mrr T said:
GT03ROB said:
Ok I see where you are coming from in terms of "not" vs. "non". You are clearly using the the "t" & "n" to differentiate
However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
I was planning to end with the post above but then saw your post.However domicile relates to your intentions & past history. Your statement however that being non-resident & not domiciled is incorrect.
I am non-resident for UK tax purposes, however the UK remains my domicile. As a non-resident I am perfectly free to remit my non-UK earnings into the UK without any tax engagement. As a non-dom, this is not so straightforward. But as you say "non-dom" "non-resident" are mutually exclusive.
Your statement regarding inheritance tax is also I believe incorrect. Even though I am UK non-resident, having UK domicile there is an IHT liability on all assets. Non-doms have different liabilities in respect of IHT
Edited by GT03ROB on Tuesday 25th June 04:59
When you say you are not UK tax resident but you are UK domiciled. Is your view of your domicile just your view because you plan to return to the UK at some time? Because your tax domicile is dependant on the tax law of the country you are resident in and any double tax treaty. For most tax purposes domicile would only matter if you have income or gains in countries your not tax resident. If your UK domiciled these would be taxed in the UK if your domiciled in the same country as your tax residency they would be taxed there. So are you confident your UK tax domiciled?
Domicile for IHT is a statutory test. You are deemed UK domiciled for IHT if you have either had a permanent home in the UK in the last 3 years or lived in the UK for15 of the last 20 years. Even if not UK domiciled UK property and bank accounts are subject to IHT.
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 25th June 07:26
https://www.aesadviser.com/2024/02/losing-uk-domic...
HMRC are more helpful.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/when-someone-li...
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
BikeBikeBIke said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
I kind of wonder how much difference this really makes, so the government closed one loop hole, I am sure there are many more and i am guessing the actual money raised by this is small, guessing the number of people who will leave because of the scrapping on this is also small. If rich people are only bothered about tax they would base themselves in Monaco, British Virgin Islands and other tax havens around the world were taxes are lower and countries like Denmark would have no millionaires living in their country.
Should millionaires not pay no personal tax in the UK, because they go out and spend money in posh shops?
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
BikeBikeBIke said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
Mrr T said:
If it's about where you pay various taxes, domicile is very much a tax test and will be defined by local/UK tax legislation and any double tax treaty. Not sure who AES are but there comments on IH are misleading.
HMRC are more helpful.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/when-someone-li...
I didn't mention IHT (wouldn't dream of giving advice on it as I haven't had to worry about the rules since 1997).HMRC are more helpful.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/when-someone-li...
Domicile is not a tax concept. Non-dom is a tax concept.
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
It was only in February that rumours were going round the conservatives were going to scrap non dom status and it doesn't come into effect until next year, so I doubt if any of the 9,500 who left over the last 12 months did so because of the announcement, although I guess some could have been looking into their crystal balls and predicting a labour victory
Although as labour are going to grow the economy it might be worh sticking round
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff