Posted on

The script for my argument on Radio 4 this evening is available here. Of course all the discussion was entirely unscripted.

Only one loss in the edit caused me regret: I pointed out rather robustly to the audience that Mike Warburton's claim that the UK tax affairs of a non-domiciled person were simple was completely wrong. The remittance rule is horribly complicated. Which is exactly, and in complete contrast to what Mike claimed, why accountants love this rule. It's a money spinner for them.

But as I said in the programme, those who abuse our country are the only people who know they win from this rule. On the basis of logic and principle, given that their is no economic evidence, the domicile rule has to go.

One other correction too: a member of the audience said I was wrong to say companies owned by non-dom people can pay lower rates of tax than those owned by domiciled people. Well, technically he might be right but since non-domes can sell their companies without paying Capital Gains Tax and can have offshore holding companies that can render management charges and the like which can be shifted to low or no tax environments pragmatically he's wrong. But I didn't have a chance to say so on the programme.