Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

Up to £100000 paid to Mrs Sunak’s company for furlough

Is that the same £100,000 that went straight to Winchester College?

The only reason to have non domicile status is to avoid paying tax in the UK on overseas earnings. It has to be applied for and costs money so it doesn’t happen by accident, it it a choice. When the chancellor was appointed the position of his wife must have been disregarded as a potential problem. It has come out now because of her company’s connection to Russia. It is not a question of legality but of doing the right thing. However, because we have a pot-kettle-black PM the British public are being asked yet again to turn a blind eye. Hell mend us if we keep on doing it.

WWM There is more to non domicile that the place where you make your home.

If anyone is seriously interested they can find the rules on the HMRC website.

George Osborne said he would reform the non dom law ( he didn't). The Sunaks have multiple homes and no doubt he will be spending Easter in one of them where he won't have to put the heating on.

Up to £100000 paid to Mrs Sunak’s company for furlough.

Good grief talk about taking the p…..s

GrannyGravy13

I have just read Alpesh B Patel OBE a financial expert who pointed out that even if Mr. Sunak’s wife were to apply for U.K. citizenship/passport the taxes on her Indian business dealings would still be paid in India due to something called double tax jeopardy

Rather than knock this woman for doing something which is totally legal, lobby your MPs for a long overdue overhaul of the tax system. But this would have absolutely no
difference on the Indian tax system.

There is something called a double tax treaty whereby if you are resident in one country and you have income from another country which is taxed (eg rents from a holiday home) you pay tax on the income in its country of source.

You are also liable to pay tax on the same income in your country of residence. If a DTT is in force you then get credit against, for example, your UK tax tax liability, the tax you paid in India.

Many people have holiday homes in Europe and if they let them during the year, they should be paying tax on that income in the country where the home is. As UK residents they should be declaring their world wide income, including the rents. If they pay tax in the UK at 20% but in the other country at 25% they would only get credit 20% and no refund of the difference in the UK. If the tax rates were reversed then they would pay the additional 5% in the UK.

Obviously this doesn't apply to non doms and those with fancy tax schemes and offshore companies.

Its getting so tiresome though, isn't it? The "its legal" excuse?

The wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't pay tax in the UK - But its entirely legal.

Lord Whatsit MP has several jobs and earns millions - But its entirely legal.

The staff of Number 10 had parties when the rest of us couldn't, but they work together - so its entirely legal.

Its about time the government realised we don't want people who do things just because they are legal but because they are morally right.

It seems that Mrs Sunak has paid her taxes in India but why do we have the richest man in the House of commons as our chancellor. He has no idea how people cope on little money and seems he doesn't care.

So this is possibly legal,

But is it moral?

£30k is paid every year to save tax. So Mrs Sunak has chosen to pay that every year and claims that she not domiciled in the U.K.

So your natural domicile is where you make your home. In Mrs Sunak’s case the U.K.

GrannyGravy13

I have just read Alpesh B Patel OBE a financial expert who pointed out that even if Mr. Sunak’s wife were to apply for U.K. citizenship/passport the taxes on her Indian business dealings would still be paid in India due to something called double tax jeopardy

Rather than knock this woman for doing something which is totally legal, lobby your MPs for a long overdue overhaul of the tax system. But this would have absolutely no
difference on the Indian tax system.

I can only repeat that non domicile status has nothing at all to do with citizenship.

Have you a link to Alpesh Patel's article?

I have just read Alpesh B Patel OBE a financial expert who pointed out that even if Mr. Sunak’s wife were to apply for U.K. citizenship/passport the taxes on her Indian business dealings would still be paid in India due to something called double tax jeopardy

Rather than knock this woman for doing something which is totally legal, lobby your MPs for a long overdue overhaul of the tax system. But this would have absolutely no
difference on the Indian tax system.

rosie1959

vegansrock

The chancellor obviously benefits from her millions with his many luxury homes. I think they are currently on holiday in their millionaires apartment in California.

He was seen in Welwyn Garden City yesterday at a hospital visit

Teletransportation?

I wish I knew how it works.

It's very generous of billionaires to donate thousands of pounds to various causes, but our world would be a fairer and better place if everyone just fairly paid their taxes.

To be a nom dom vegansrock is not claiming that your main residence is not in U.K. it is that your main source of income is outside of the U.K.

This law goes back to the 1700’s apparently, so plenty of time for various Governments to have amended it.

The whole system is archaic - you can live at no 11 Downing Street, claim you live elsewhere to avoid paying taxes into the treasury of which your husband is the chancellor. Stinks.

Of course I understand people wanting to better themselves DaisyAnne - it’s the hypocrisy I can’t get my head around!

The tories I know who bought their council houses and traded up etc aren’t the ones moaning that their kids can’t get social housing and the Labour devotees are!

It’s all very well saying more houses should’ve been built with the proceeds but because of the discounts given to long standing tenants they couldn’t have replaced more than 10% of housing stock.

So we are where we are because folks looked after their own interest - Thatcher was right if she said there’s no such thing as society, after all!

Thanks maize must have a look.

Sorry, didn't notice that my phone keeps changing non dom to non domestic. It is, of course, meant to be non domicile.

Murphy says there is a difference between being resident for tax purposes and claiming non domestic status, Wwmk2. It's all in the thread I posted the link to.

He also says, GG13 that having non domestic status is not evidence of having paid the tax elsewhere...

To revert to non domestic status, it has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship. Anyone British born and bred can claim it if they fulfil the extraordinarily vague requirements.

Richard Murphy explains
That’s because non-dom status is about where a person’s natural home is. Essentially, it is a test based on the evidence that they are only temporarily resident in the UK because they retain the intention to return to another place, which is their natural home.

The whole thread is worth reading.

mobile.twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964441545428993

I have been reading a Gov. briefing paper on how to determine whether an individual is domiciled in the U.K. for tax purposes, and so far I think Mrs Sunak fits that billShe may be claiming on a remittance basis, but I still can’t think how.

The Sunak’s don’t, as far as I can find - and I could be wrong and google isn’t complete but I can’t find that they have a family residence in India.

Copy from briefing paper

2.4 The circumstances in which individuals are treated as UK resident for tax purposes include the following:
• they spend 183 days or more here in any tax year or more than 90 days on average over a period of up to 4 years;
• they come to the UK intending to live here permanently or for at least three years;
• they come to the UK for a purpose (for example employment) that will mean that they remain here for at least two years (whether or not, in a particular year, they spend 183 days here); and
• they usually live in the UK and go abroad for short periods, for example on business trips.

It’s well off piste to continue to discuss social housing but here I go.
Councils were not allowed to use the money from the sale of its housing stock to build more. Many ex council houses are now owned by landlords who rent them out privately. I’ve seen people evicted by the council for drug dealing, move into these private rented and continue to deal.
Housing associations were also forced to sell housing stock to tenants.
We need more social housing at reasonable rent, with security for tenants. The buy your social housing legislation should be ditched

According to the Guardian 12% of those in the richest areas of London are non doms.

The article is worth reading.

It does seem unfair that the super rich can do this.