Page 4 | To think it sets a really bad example for the country when the PMs family have tax dodged millions

Chloefairydust · 2022-10-25T21:05:21+00:00

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🤔)

minou123 · 26/10/2022 00:16

Omahonfran · 26/10/2022 00:05

Until you see a disabled person and call them scroungers, you lot are all the same. Always backing the wrong horse to make yourself feel better

What?

I don't understand your post, are you implying disabled people are involved in Tax Avoidance?

Hawkins001 · 26/10/2022 00:20

minou123 · 25/10/2022 23:51

Gary Barlow Tax Avoidance Scheme is a good one to read, if your up for a laugh 😁

Show quote history

I'll give it a chance

Hawkins001 · 26/10/2022 00:22

Omahonfran · 26/10/2022 00:03

Morals are much more important in this

With all due respect,

Morals and broke, or fluid morals (due to tax structures) and can put food on the table to feed the family ?

MyBuggyIsOutToGetMe · 26/10/2022 00:23

I suppose what I’m confused by is how you can be a non-dom when you live here. I get it if you’re one of those people who live between three different locations, but I don’t understand how you can live with your husband (I’m assuming they live together), who is an MP therefore presumably with some degree of commitment to staying here in the medium term at least, and your children who are presumably educated here (again, I assume) but effectively be saying you’re not domiciled here.

I am not saying anyone is doing anything illegal here - I am aware she’s followed the rules. I’m just intrigued that you can be a non-dom when you appear to live in the U.K. on a permanent basis - is there an onus on you to prove your residence here is not long-term?

VeniVidiWeeWee · 26/10/2022 00:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

You have the audacity to call other people thick when you don't understand that the top 10% of earners contribute 60% of all income tax receipts.

unici5 · 26/10/2022 00:24

Obbydoo · 26/10/2022 00:01

Of course it does. They have literally done nothing wrong.

I hate what politics (and the nefua agenda) do to the way people think. I have no intention of voting for Sunak or any other Conservative but this is just a bullshit story made up by the media for a headline which stupid people fall for hook, line and sinker.

Show quote history

@Obbydoo

What is the nefua agenda? Do you mean media?

If so, your post is pretty derogatory towards some of us who have experience with, or have thought about, this issue. I don't actually feel like the stupid one here.

LadyWithLapdog · 26/10/2022 00:27

So do they have a long-distance marriage? How is she not living here? Didn’t she go out to reporters with cups of tea when hdd we was running for PM? Don’t the kids live with them? Greedy. Very greedy.

unici5 · 26/10/2022 00:27

MyBuggyIsOutToGetMe · 26/10/2022 00:23

I suppose what I’m confused by is how you can be a non-dom when you live here. I get it if you’re one of those people who live between three different locations, but I don’t understand how you can live with your husband (I’m assuming they live together), who is an MP therefore presumably with some degree of commitment to staying here in the medium term at least, and your children who are presumably educated here (again, I assume) but effectively be saying you’re not domiciled here.

I am not saying anyone is doing anything illegal here - I am aware she’s followed the rules. I’m just intrigued that you can be a non-dom when you appear to live in the U.K. on a permanent basis - is there an onus on you to prove your residence here is not long-term?

@MyBuggyIsOutToGetMe

If you look at my previous post, I explain how this works. It's a time limited perk (15 years) but you can live here full time while claiming it.

walkersareback · 26/10/2022 00:29

Clymene · 25/10/2022 22:45

His wife changed her status so that she would pay more income tax. She didn't have to.

This is such a non story with racist undertones.

This! And I am no Rishi fan.

EndlessMagpies · 26/10/2022 00:31

Getoff · 25/10/2022 22:49

Yes, but to be clear, what she did was not even tax avoidance.

Show quote history

What are you saying it was that she did then? Sorry, I am not familiar with this particular issue.

TiddyTidTwo · 26/10/2022 00:33

Nothing wrong with legal tax efficiency planning.

To the ordinary people who live hand to mouth, at this moment in time, it's all a bit out of touch of life in the UK right now. That's the issue

altmember · 26/10/2022 00:41

minou123 · 25/10/2022 22:28

OK, I just want to state, I in no way like or condone Rishi Sunak.

Op, I think you may have misunderstood the issue. Very simply there are 3 ways in which you can pay less tax:

1. UK Tax Laws schemes and reliefs.
Legal.
There are loads of things you can do to reduce the amount of tax you pay. These are purposefully introduced to help lower tax.
The most obvious one I can think off is ISA savings accounts. Usually if you are saving money and making lots of interest, you pay tax on the interst you make.
If you open an ISA, you won't pay tax on the interest. Very legal, in fact encouraged.

2. Tax Avoidance
Semi legal ish.

Very simply, you find a loophole in the Tax Law and take advantage of it to reduce your tax.
Think Amazon, Starbucks etc.
Some Tax Avoidance schemes have been allowed, then it's up to the Governent to tighten the loopholes.
Is it illegal? Most of the time, No
Is it morally wrong? Yes

3. Tax Evasion
Highly illegal. In fact fraud. You are purposely hiding your money from HMRC, so you dont pay tax.

Rushi, well his wife, falls under No. 1 - perfectly legal Tax Scheme and morally fine to do.

You may not like it which is fine, but they have done nothing wrong.

My explanation above is a very brief overview , there is much more to it than this, but I don't think anyone will appreciate pages and pages of Tax Law. 😁

It comes down to whether she is/was genuinely non dom though. If she is then 1, if not then 3, or possibly 2. They have 4 houses in the UK, their children go to school here. Non dom status has a time restriction of 15 years. She's lived in the UK for 7 years already.

And if what they were doing was clear cut legit, they wouldn't have rolled over so easily.

OperationRinka · 26/10/2022 00:46

unici5 · 25/10/2022 23:43

As someone who has been a non-dom in the UK, I have some pretty mixed feelings about it.

Basically, the way it works is that you can claim non-dom status for a certain number of years (15, I think). You pay a flat fee for the first 12 years of around £30,000 and then £60,000 for the last three. You then pay whatever tax rate you fall into on any money you remit (bring into the UK). So most non-doms keep as much of their holdings as possible, either offshore (the Channel Islands basically exist to facilitate this) or in their native country, and bring in as little as possible. Although fun fact: money you bring onshore to pay tax is considered a remittance and will be taxed in the next year.

Our tax rate here is 45%, our tax rate in the US is (I believe) 37%, I do not know the rate in India, where I think Akshata Murthy is domiciled. Weirdly, we also have a substantial tax bill every year in California, despite not having set foot in the state for so much as a weekend in probably twenty years, as they take a portion of income generated from any business there. There are also some complicated deadlines where if you pay a certain amount by a certain date in one country or the other you get a small credit against your liability in the other.

Even in our case, and we're worth much less than she/they are, it requires a lot of hours by knowledgeable accountants. IMO, it really is not like getting tax relief on a pension or ISA, which is pretty straightforward.

I actually think it's a pretty crap policy, and it's not a great look for the family of the man in charge of monetary policy to be taking advantage of it, but it is legal. I find it particularly troubling as there is talk of abolishing it as a policy and he was hardly in an unconflicted position. We converted to domiciled earlier than we needed to as we had some moral queasiness about the bulk of our tax money not going to support the place in which we were living and raising our family, but I suppose, while not an insignificant amount, we had less to lose than they did.

Last thing - I've seen a lot about how it's her money and sexism etc. to expect her to accommodate his career. I don't know their setup, but my husband and I have both worked in an industry where there are certain investments we would not be allowed to make because it would raise a conflict of interest, so I'd be surprised if they'd never run across that issue.

Great post.

One thing to add is that I very much doubt she was holding most of her assets under the Indian tax regime: all the statements were very careful to say that "the appropriate tax was paid in the appropriate jurisdiction in which it was due" or something equally non-specific. If she'd been domiciled in India then she'd have said so, it was almost certainly the Caymans or similar, again perfectly legal, but not a great look for the Chancellor's spouse.

I agree that almost any financial job will have conflict of interest requirements that apply equally to your spouse. "My wife's financial affairs are none of my business" would cut no ice for a provincial branch manager at Nat West, let alone the finance minister of a G7 economy.

justasking111 · 26/10/2022 00:57

TiddyTidTwo · 26/10/2022 00:33

Nothing wrong with legal tax efficiency planning.

To the ordinary people who live hand to mouth, at this moment in time, it's all a bit out of touch of life in the UK right now. That's the issue

BUT there's always people with more/less money. That's how it works in western democracy. Russia has given up on communism looking at the oligarchs. Chinese students in Leeds keep Harvey Nichols going.

I'm disillusioned with government from the local councils to Westminster. Left right centre so much corruption and greed.

Binkybix · 26/10/2022 01:12

i lived in a low income country for several years working for an international charity. I was non-Dom and didn’t pay Uk tax

That’s different. I’m assuming you were non resident for UK tax. This was a specific status that can be paid for even when living in the UK.

Whilst agreeing that it is legal, I don’t like it. Less like the green card. However, since they have both opted to give up both, I think that’s reasonable and needs to be put aside now.

Cantstandbullshit · 26/10/2022 01:23

Chloefairydust · 25/10/2022 22:08

They probably have some sort of legal loophole … but that doesn’t make it right

Why do you feel entitled to benefit from money she makes in India? Her wealth is tied to her fathers company based in India so why do you feel you need a share of it? She should and does pay tax on income earned in the UK.

minou123 · 26/10/2022 01:27

altmember · 26/10/2022 00:41

It comes down to whether she is/was genuinely non dom though. If she is then 1, if not then 3, or possibly 2. They have 4 houses in the UK, their children go to school here. Non dom status has a time restriction of 15 years. She's lived in the UK for 7 years already.

And if what they were doing was clear cut legit, they wouldn't have rolled over so easily.

Show quote history

There is no evidence to suggest she claimed non-dom status incorrectly.

Unless you have anything that suggests this wasnt genuine.

I would imagine, due to the high level income involved, tax advisors sought Non-Statutory Clearence with HMRC and discussed the non-dom criteria extensively.

Non Dom status is quite complicated and isn't just based on how many houses you have in the UK or where your children go to school.
For some people it is straightforward, for others it isn't.

As far as I can see from press reports, no one has suggested she wasn't a genuine non-dom. In fact, even the journalist agree what she did was perfectly legal. They just didn't like it.
Well, there are lots of UK Tax Laws I don't like, but they are perfectly legal and are in no way tax avoidance or Tax Evasion.

As for rolling over, this is no way means what she was doing wasnt legit. The more likely reason was from a PR perspective.
There are lots of example of famous/well known people who decide for PR purposes to not claim/ repay taxes. They figure the reputational damage is worth more than the tax.

FurAndFeathers · 26/10/2022 01:27

Binkybix · 26/10/2022 01:12

i lived in a low income country for several years working for an international charity. I was non-Dom and didn’t pay Uk tax

That’s different. I’m assuming you were non resident for UK tax. This was a specific status that can be paid for even when living in the UK.

Whilst agreeing that it is legal, I don’t like it. Less like the green card. However, since they have both opted to give up both, I think that’s reasonable and needs to be put aside now.

Why is it different?
we were both non eligible for Uk tax and this did not pay. At which point do you suggest non-eligible folk should pay Uk tax?

in fact if you’re a passionate believer in over paying tax, you could argue that charity workers like me should continue to pay Uk tax as we’re Uk citizens and have benefitted from UK infrastructures. What’s the rationale for insisting that Indian nationals who earn money in India should voluntarily pay Uk tax that they aren’t liable for @Binkybix ?

TooBigForMyBoots · 26/10/2022 01:28

Like the Royal Family?

FurAndFeathers · 26/10/2022 01:29

altmember · 26/10/2022 00:41

It comes down to whether she is/was genuinely non dom though. If she is then 1, if not then 3, or possibly 2. They have 4 houses in the UK, their children go to school here. Non dom status has a time restriction of 15 years. She's lived in the UK for 7 years already.

And if what they were doing was clear cut legit, they wouldn't have rolled over so easily.

Show quote history

@altmember whats the basis for insinuating she wasn’t genuinely non-Dom?

from the information you’ve posted yourself, she’s well within the 15 year limit. What’s your basis for suggesting it’s not ‘legit’?

Nat6999 · 26/10/2022 01:31

It's a loophole that needs closing, they have stopped the IR35 loophole that many less well off people used but left the non domicile & double taxation loophole wide open.

Aarohi · 26/10/2022 01:41

OperationRinka · 26/10/2022 00:46

Great post.

One thing to add is that I very much doubt she was holding most of her assets under the Indian tax regime: all the statements were very careful to say that "the appropriate tax was paid in the appropriate jurisdiction in which it was due" or something equally non-specific. If she'd been domiciled in India then she'd have said so, it was almost certainly the Caymans or similar, again perfectly legal, but not a great look for the Chancellor's spouse.

I agree that almost any financial job will have conflict of interest requirements that apply equally to your spouse. "My wife's financial affairs are none of my business" would cut no ice for a provincial branch manager at Nat West, let alone the finance minister of a G7 economy.

Show quote history

Sunak has told the BBC (among others) that Murthy is domiciled in India and intends to return there to care for her parents when they are older. The "appropriate tax in the appropriate jurisdiction" may just refer to the fact that she has tax liability in multiple jurisdictions - in addition to India and the UK, she certainly still does in the USA, for example.

altmember · 26/10/2022 03:02

FurAndFeathers · 26/10/2022 01:29

@altmember whats the basis for insinuating she wasn’t genuinely non-Dom?

from the information you’ve posted yourself, she’s well within the 15 year limit. What’s your basis for suggesting it’s not ‘legit’?

Show quote history

My understanding of it is that it comes down to intent. When she first moved to the UK, she might well have genuinely believed it was temporary, so would have been absolutely fine to declare non dom status. But circumstances and plans can change. Married to a British bloke, husband becomes MP, have kids, put them into a UK school, buy several houses. Maybe she was always planning to up sticks and take their kids to India? But to all intents and purposes it looks to me like they were settling in the UK for the long term. I suspect they had no intention of rescinding the non dom status until media pressure took hold.

Binkybix · 26/10/2022 03:09

Why is it different? We were both non eligible for Uk tax and this did not pay. At which point do you suggest non-eligible folk should pay Uk tax?

You wrote as though you and she had the same tax status, when it is a different legal category. Objectively, that is different and is granted for different reasons.

Non-doms are not eligible because they can pay to avoid paying tax in the UK even when essentially living here. It is an unusual and controversial exemption, which I don’t happen to agree with in its current form.

mjf981 · 26/10/2022 03:14

I think the fact that he no longer uses tax evasion is a good thing. It suggests that he is in the job for the right reasons. As a family, they are basically forgoing many millions of pounds, to protect his image and allow him to be PM (there's no way he would have got in, unless they had agreed to change her non dom status).