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🤔)

But is she claiming non dom status now?

If she's a non-dom, that is a matter of fact. (She's probably a non-dom.)

The question is whether she is claiming the remittance basis (something only non-doms can do). Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. That's between her and her tax advisor, and I take no issue with it.

All non-doms benefit from the ability to keep her income and gains outside the UK for the first 15 years if they pay for it. I'm not sure if that point has been understood by everyone - it's not a free pass to keep everything out of the UK. It starts off as £30k, then when you've been here 12 years, it becomes £60k. If they don't bring everything onshore to the UK, they have to pay this instead.

I know plenty of wealthy people who came to the UK to do business because of the attractiveness of the regime, and who have massively contributed to the economy. I'm not that fussed about keeping income and gains outside of the UK and having them taxed elsewhere (the point is that someone is taxing them).

Well, it's not really a rigmarole if you were born abroad to foreign parents and lived abroad! But I do get your point about there being various reliefs that apply to inheritance tax anyway.

I assume Rishi Sunak knew about this quirk all along - or if he didn't, he should have known about it - and it seems in poor taste that to my knowledge, he's never tried to legislate against it.

I can't get excited about a non-dom potentially claiming the remittance basis though. It's about as interesting as a company claiming capital allowances.

I just feel this is one of those many, many times where the media have whipped up a frenzy about the wrong thing, and it means no one is paying attention to the thing that's actually interesting.

Why is it implied theres rAcISt undertones when some who's non-white is criticised.

@feelthebeatfromthetangerine
I haven’t thought about the IHT in any detail but I’d assume that the vast majority of assets are shares in an Indian company which would qualify for business property relief. And I would also think that if she lives until she’s 85 and dies in the UK never having left claiming non- dom status at that point is more contentious.

She isn’t claiming non dom status now but was until it all blow up earlier this year. It was ok to do that when no one spoke about it but when it came under public scrutiny she decided the right thing to do was not claim.
Draw your own conclusions.

She isn’t claiming non dom status now but was until it all blow up earlier this year

Actually, as I understand it she is, but opting to pay the tax that would have been die had she not been non-Dom. Presumably to keep the IHT benefits.

Either way she’s paying the tax because of pressure not because she thought it the right thing to do.

Yes, that's how I understand it, she's still a non-dom but paying taxes as if she weren't for now: hedging her bets in case the IHT element becomes important. If her father died while Sunak was still PM then she'd have some difficult choices to make.

Do you pay an extra amount of tax that you're not legally obliged to pay because you think it the 'right thing to do'?

I can't imagine anyone paying more tax than they have to. I certainly don't.

Every extremely rich person on the planet, and everyone else come to that, pays exactly the amount of tax they are legally obliged to pay and no more.

She's doing nothing different from anyone else.

@pigsDOfly my point is her actions, she thought it was ok not to pay when it wasn't in the public eye, when it came under public scrutiny she decided the right thing to do was pay the tax.
It’s not what I’m saying, it’s what her actions are saying.
You say why would you pay more if you don’t need to, maybe ask Mrs Sunak?

I imagine she's paying more because of the impact on public opinion in this country, as witnessed on this thread.

However, she wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong.

She was paying the tax she was legally obliged to pay, people in this country weren't happy about that and now she's changed how she pays her taxes.

I hope you never buy your takeaway from a certain American Coffee chain, I'm not going to name them but they're huge all over the UK.

The minimal amount of uk tax they pay is appalling. Nobody seems to be bothered by that and seem more than happy to add to their non tax paying profits.

@pigsDOfly so now your saying Mrs Sunak was not doing anything illegal and was confident of her non dom status but due to public opinion she’s changed to doing the wrong thing? Doesn’t bode well if that’s how the PM is going to operate does it; well I known it’s not the right option but if it makes the public happy we’ll do it anyway?
I suspect people aren’t “bothered” as you put it about the American coffee company because the owner isn’t married to the PM who needs to lead getting this country out of the mess it’s in.
I don’t drink coffee so can sleep well tonight.

To be fair, that's the same reason my DH is still alive.

nypost.com/2022/10/27/german-heir-annoyed-by-multibillion-dollar-inheritance-wants-it-taxed-away/amp/ Some rich people do want to pay more tax.

DonnaDonna0

There are options to choose for UK taxation under Non Domicile legislation. Both options are entirely legal, because the options are drawn up by HMRC.

She changed from one option to the other (again, perfectly legal) because the Court of Public Opinion was decrying her perfectly legal tax status and option. What with her DH being Chancellor and all, I dare say she was trying to read the room.

I'd say that was pretty magnanimous of her, considering she wasn't doing anything wrong, illegal or immoral in the first place.

It's all very "Caesars wife" - except no matter what she did she will be pilloried because she's married to a Tory.

It is unjust. You are being unjust as are all the others here claiming tax avoidance, dodging etc etc.

@BMW6 it’s not unjust , it’s my personal opinion which I am entitled to. Just like you.

Plus “reading the room” and “magnanimous of her”
She was the wife of the chancellor, if it’s totally legal and she’s confident and happy in taking this option why not defend it regardless of public opinion? That’s why we are in some of the mess we’re in now, taking the wrong option to gather favour.
It’s not about being a Tory either, I just want what’s best for the country and the people to make that happen. I hope it is Rishi Sunak but this along with some other business issues with Mrs Sunak do have me concerned.

Nobody has broken the law, YABU OP.

Bored of hearing this anti Rishi narrative now, clearly he knows how to handle finances, he doesn't need the money from the job of being PM, why would anyone take that role unless they were passionate about doing so? Give it 12 months, I'm certain he will do a good job. It's a shame he wasn't PM from the start of Boris resigning, the UK would be in a great position otherwise.

Now can all you socialist benefit scrounging anti Rishi folk crawl back under your rocks?

Yes, its your Personal Opinion that is Unjust.

I applied UK tax law to hundreds of thousands of individuals over 30 years. The same to Everyone, whoever they were, rich or poor, whatever their Ethnicity.

I personally disagreed with many of the laws, but applied them without bias. That is Just.

You are not. Your bias is not founded on Law. You are Unjust.

Now can all you socialist benefit scrounging anti Rishi folk crawl back under your rocks?

This is out of line.
This debate has got heated at times, but there is no need for this.

Like BMW6 says UK Tax Law is based on fact, not on what on what I feel about an individual or political party.

In fact, I am very much anti-Rishi.
You could probably call me a "socialist"
And i never think anyone on benefits is a "scrounger". I think the benefits system is restrictive and it should be open to more people - but thats another thread.

I may not personally like Mrs Sunak ir Rishi Sunak, but that doesn't matter.
The fact is she claimed Non Dom Status correctly, legally and full within UK Tax Law. If I was her advisor, I would have told her not to give in to public pressure.

It was probably to make it go away. Let’s face it we are not electing Rishi Sunak’s wife. It was a damaging campaign to try and lower his chances.

I doubt she wanted her personal life in the spotlight, and why should she be scrutinised if legal.

@BMW6
Have I every said she has done anything illegal?
Have I lied about what has happened over the last few months with her non don status - no
I have seen and heard what has happened and had an opinion on it. - yes
I haven’t lied, haven’t said she’s done something she hasn’t, I’ve been honest.
Unjust - hardly but some people can’t stand someone to have a different opinion than theirs.

Yes very good at handling finances is our Rishi - wonder what he was doing back in 2008? Or in 2016, out campaigning for the very financially successful Brexit I think

And sure everyone becomes PM because they are passionate about doing a good job...nothing to do with power and influence, or ego, or anything like that. Not at all.

And of course all of us anti-Rishi folk are all socialist benefit scroungers, what else could we be? I mean, he gets a lot of credit for furlough but let's face it, he was left with no choice but to follow in other countries footsteps and still managed to lose billions of pounds through fraudulent payments. I personally worked throughout lockdown so have no experience of that anyway - never claimed any benefits my entire life either so that's me out of your sweeping generalisation.

What else has he done? Apart from state the bleeding obvious v. the idiot Truss during the summer.

So you agree she did nothing illegal you just "don't like it"?

You can have an opinion on many things, but not to claim someone has committed an offence when they haven't . That would be Unjust (possibly libellous?)

Good job you're not in a position of authority.