To think it sets a really bad example for the country when the PMs family have tax dodged millions

[Chloefairydust]

Just that really…

Im really surprised Sunak actually made it to be prime minister considering the recent stories that have been in the news regarding his family avoiding millions of ££ in tax . I actually thought Boris would have been more likely to have been PM. (Not that he’s any better🤔)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

Here is the link to the HMRC guidance, for anyone who doubts that I have copied it correctly.

It raises many questions about security, loyalty and conflicts of culture and of interest. Many people are not claiming to run a country. Prince Harry is surely a poor example given that he chose to live in the US?

So did she still have "no firm plans" to stay in the UK in 2015 when her husband was elected to the British parliament and she had 2 small kids here?

But you need flowchart 3 as may have no firm plans and was born outside UK

"No firm plans" to stay with 2 small children and a husband elected to serve in the British parliament?

I did. I read it

The guidance notes explicitly state the flow chart is for indication purposes. It is not the be all and end all to make a decision if someone has Non Dom Status.

I think ypur viewing this as a simple "does she have intention or not" in layman's terms.

The notes which accompany the flowchart explain all this.

The term "intention" has different meaning from tax perspective, criminal law, civil law perspective and the everyday use of the word.

I really am rrying not to be patronising, but you're trying to apply your opinion on a simple flowchart, without knowing all the facts and background definition of the words used in the flow chart.

@rosangelanne a friend of ours married an Australian. Lived in Uk and had children. He had a well paid job here, not PM but certainly paid more than your average MP. They then moved to another country and are now living in Australia. Still on a well paid job.

When they first got married I am sure the wife wasn’t 100% certain they were going to stay in Uk forever as her family all lived in Australia

And has we have seen in general elections and by-elections a job in Parliament can be precarious and Rishi can certainly earn more in other jobs other than an MP or even PM

Yes, it's immoral but it's unsurprising that he has become PM despite this.

Avoidance of tax being the wealthy is positively lauded in some quarters and the people in charge have been busily siphoning off as much as they can for decades.

It’s not avoidance of tax

That's your opinion @toomuchlaundry .
My opinion is different. It's clear to me that deliberate tax avoidance is practiced by many (probably the majority) of very wealthy people.

This is something that’s hugely emotive and contentious and it’s part in due to the media and part due to the lack of understanding of average folks like us.

they didn’t do anything morally or legally wrong. They optimised their tax position. They dodged nothing and words like dodged, morally wrong etc is what’s emotive. Because this is about overseas earnings not uk earnings.

most large companies and wealthy individuals will optimise their tax positions. They don’t sit and do it themselves, they don’t even really hands on over see it, the accountants and tax advisors do it. The individual or company then pays .

what’s now happened is Rishi wife is subject to double taxation. She’s paying tax on her earnings in non uk countries in that country and she’s now also paying it again in the uk. No one does double tax if they can avoid it. Folks have to remember it’s tax on her overseas earnings that’s in question , not uk tax. She was paying that.

so because of the hounding she’s being doubly taxed on over seas earnings. Once in the country she earns it and once here as well.

It’s not tax avoidance, this is so emotive. It’s subjective if you think a uk citizen should pay tax on over seas earnings as well as in the country they earn it. I don’t. And don’t consider it avoidance if you don’t.

so to give an example. You buy 500 bucks of shares in apple in the us. You get a dividend of 5o bucks. You pay tax on that in America. You then pay it again in the uk. That’s what she’s now doing. Her non dom status meant she only paid it once in America. She was paying her uk tax on uk earnings. It’s her overseas earnings she wasn’t.

for me it’s not tax avoidance but optimisation. And I don’t believe the uk government has a right to tax on earnings in another country.

@Fushiadreams and is that fair? Bet most posters on here would be up in arms if they got taxed twice

It might be ethically wrong but being so wealthy it's no different than billionaires all over the world using legal schemes to minimise their tax liability.
The shit will hit the fan if he doesn't sort the countries finances and trillions of debt. He's on borrowed time

I don’t think it’s right no, but I think it’s the media and lack of understanding of this. But yes she’s now subject to double taxation for money that’s not even in the uk and wasn’t earned in the uk. In my example that money can be held in an us account and the uk government is now taxing her on it as is the us government.

no one does double taxation, it’s shite. Her position was normal. Anyone would do it. It’s not she was not paying tax on her uk earnings she was, it was only money earned and held elsewhere she wasn’t and now she’s paying it twice.

my view is the uk government isn’t entitled to tax that just as it’s a British citizen domiciled here, hence why most folks go for non dom to avoid it.

Absolutely.

There is a clear distinction between optimising your tax position and tax avoidance.

Everyone optimises thier tax position, If you ever pay into a pension or have an ISA or deduct business expenses, you are using tax reliefs that are purposely set up to help you reduce your tax.

Tax Avoidance is another thing entirely. People involved in tax avoidance, such as Gary Barlow, Jmmy Carr, David Beckham, even the Queen, should be held accountable for their immoral actions as they are trying to reduce the tax they pay by finding loopholes in the rules.
(In fact one or two of those were incredibly offence tax avoidance schemes and in my opinion bordering on Evasion - but that's another story)

@Fushiadreams

As someone who has been non-dom in the UK, I do have understanding of the process and this isn't exactly right.

First of all, you do know exactly what you're doing and you do see it. It's quite a picky process compared to paying as a settled tax resident. You have to turn over documentation accounting for every cent that you've remitted into the UK or earned from UK assets over the previous year and sign off on it. Since taking settled status, our accountants literally tell us what we owe and we pay it, which is a much less hands on process.

And moving to settled status from non-dom doesn't lead to double taxation. You receive credits for foreign tax payments. It's not a hundred percent credit, but you're absolutely not double taxed. What it does mean is that you've lost the option to have the majority of your wealth taxed in jurisdictions with lower rates than the UK. Which, as a PP pointed out, is likely why they were careful to not say that her tax burden was in India, which has high rates. The odds are very high that she (or rather her advisors/accountants) had structured her wealth to be held in jurisdictions with negligible rates and she now has to pay 45% on it instead.

Again, there is much tax avoidance by the wealthy. I find it morally reprehensible that the very wealthy 'optimise their position' or whatever forgiving term you like to pick while others are starving. You can choose to laud them or feel supportive or whatever. I do not.

AM is just one example.
There has been absolutely no confirmation that she is actually paying tax in India (her statement was extremely vague) and it is well known that there is plenty of tax avoidance by the very wealthy there.

Again this isn’t quite right but I was trying not to go into too much detail and was trying to be simplistic. But I doubt she’s siting handing anything over, that would be you or me, she will have people managing everything,

and it is double taxation, yes there is ins and outs, but fundamentally it is and even Rishi commented the other day on it that she was now paying tax in both jurisdictions on the same earnings.

but yes, for rhe sake of not getting into complex tax laws at a high level it’s double taxation and it is a shocking high amount.

I'm sorry, but we are dual US / UK citizens who moved from non-dom status to settled status. We're not in their league, but our tax payments are seven figures in both countries. Yes, the amount owed went up when we changed. There is more of the pot on which we pay the higher rate but there is very little on which we are double taxed. I'm sure her financial affair are more complicated than ours, so there might be a small portion on which she is indeed double taxed, but I'm positive she will have had people ensuring that's it's a small percentage of her holdings.

There is no evidence of tax dodging by the Prime Minister's wife, who is a woman and an independent person, not in Parliament, and who I really hope doesn't have to go cap in hand to her husband because of his position, and account to him. If I were her, I would personally hate that and feel resentful. The media have whipped up the storm on a quiet news day wording the story in a way to suggest we should be jealous of other people's hard earned cash? We don't. It's their's. I hope she enjoy's it. I am delighted she is living at a time and in a world, where she gets to keep it and not hand it over to her husband... that was once the law. Let's not go back there.

It's not forever, it's 15 years. And being an MP is not like any other job - there is an implicit understanding that you have a long term interest and commitment to the country. Not that you're just living here temporarily and will soon make your permanent home abroad.

She married Sunak in 2009.

It's not clear when they moved to the Uk but the Guardian says 2015 - (the same year he was elected , which seems pretty odd)

So they didn't live in the UK for (at least) the 6 years immediately prior to him being elected as a British MP. And at the time he was elected, they intended to leave the uk within 15 years (or at least had no firm plans to stay that long).

And they continued to hold that intention to leave the uk up until 2022 when he was chancellor of the bloody exchequer?? And conveniently changed their minds when it was brought to public light.

Ok. Anyone trying to defend this must really really love the Tory party.

Source: amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/06/rishi-sunaks-wife-claims-non-domicile-status

Why does being an MP mean you will never leave the country? You don't remain an MP for life. You can be committed to the country whilst you live in it. Why is there an implicit understanding you have a lifelong commitment to the country. I don't expect that of my MP. I expect him to make the right decisions about the country but that doesn't mean he has to live here forever