Categories:Private Client

Legal community slams Budget's non-doms policy

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • Non-doms

    The overall impression is of a tacit acknowledgment that the original provisions were overly aggressive, poorly thought out and shoddily drafted.
    This is yet another sad reflection of the current Treasury practice of 'shoot first - think later'. One would hope that our elected representatives would be capable of learning from their mistakes, but there has been no real evidence of this to date.

    One of the main sources of antagonism for non-doms - the disclosure process
    - has been completely removed and is to be welcomed. The re-classification of the £30,000 from a fee to a tax on unremitted income/gains is also a major concession and will help our influential American friends (surely no coincidence).

    Will non-doms still leave in droves? Sadly, many have already started making plans and though some will change their minds (particularly relevant here is the disclosure rules) there has still been a massive loss of confidence in the UK government. What our clients are telling is that they feel this this is just the beginning of a concerted attack against them and its best to get out now, while the going is good. I think the Treasury is aware of this sentiment as we also have a promise in the Budget that there will be no further changes for 'this parliament and the next' (God forbid we should have another Labour administration!).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Budget - non-doms

    For clients perhaps the most significant statement is that there will be no further changes to the residence and domicile rules for the life of this Parliament and the next. The way in which the Government has changed, dithered and backtracked on its proposals has resulted in clients wasting professional fees trying to keep up and rearrange their affairs in an unacceptably short timescale. This reassuring message in respect of the future stability of the tax system should go a long way towards repairing the damage and encouraging non-domiciles to come to or remain in this country.

    We have still to see the legislative detail on the changes but the announcements are encouraging and should be significant enough to continue to make London and the UK a destination of choice for wealthy foreigners provided that they are properly professionally advised.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some of Us Receive Fairer Treatment Than Others?

    Alistair Darling's final pronouncement on a 'foreigner levy' - [a tax on on those who chose to retain a domicile outside of the UK, despite being resident in the UK) was disappointing, muddled and stuck two fingers up in the air at his promise of injecting fairness into the tax regime.
    I, as a South African domicile holder, will pay a levy of £30,000 and lose my capital allowances. My American neighbours will pay a £30,000 tax which will be deductible against US income tax. How is it fair or just that i should pay a "levy" and another 'non-dom' should pay a tax?
    Meanwhile the Super-Rich - those whom the Labour alligned Unions see as being the enemy of the socialist state - have won almost all the concessions they asked for.
    I have always believed that the Labour government resembled a snobby, social climber, desperate to clamber aboard the floating gin palaces of the poshocracy. The brouhaha about non-doms and the unbelievably cringing climb-down proves my point.
    But what are Labour going to do when the Unions realise that property in Eaton Square is still beyond their pay packet and the likes of Sir Philip Green and Laksmi Mittal are continuing to swan around in Gulfstream Jets and Bentleys without paying a 'fairer share' of UK tax?
    If I were dear Alistair and Gordon, I'd start looking for new jobs!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bankers should have huge bonuses and non doms should be made richer by not taxing them in any way. Also the wealthy should be enabled to maintain their ascendency because if we don't our system of capitalism will collapse and we will have to find an alternative system.
    If we continue to penalise the rich they will go elsewhere and our country will go bust. The graduall power taken by a domocracy which is gradually, through education and freedom of information are realising the inherent division which must(?) exist to make such a system viable. The dictatorship of the proletariate will eventually see capitalism's destruction. The masses enjoy the trappings of this system but dislike its inherent inequalities and will, given time be instrumental in its demise. The sub text to this is that if you are a selfish and self seeking individual then vote for the bankers and non doms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (4)