Not half as disconcerting as our audience does!

Richard

(I’m off to catch a train soon, but thanks - it’s been an interesting debate)

I always find it disconcerting when we agree!

Richard

Agreed. As I said, I don’t think the current system is morally acceptable, and adding a £25,000 fee doesn’t make it any better. I just think that under our legal system we can’t say that it’s actually illegal.

Also agreed on EU / OECD; it’s a disgrace that the UK has been allowed to get away with the non-dom rule, and hypocritical of them to do so whilst pressuring other jurisdictions.

Richard

I think we’ve bashed this one enough

My point is simple - this is a fee to not pay tax. I think that is not acceptable, and cannot be legitimised.

It is, for example, a harmeful tax practice is defined by the EU and OECD.

Richard

I’m sure you’re mistaken on this point.

The Fayed case is irrelevant, because that involved the Revenue waiving tax that was due in law. The Tories’ proposal is presumably for a statutory provision under which non-doms could qualify for statutory tax exemptions on paying a statutory fee.

Therefore provided they qualified and paid the fee, there would legally be no tax liability on their offshore income. Just like there is, by statute, no tax liability on ISA income.

By coontrst, Fayed had a legal tax liability, but the Revenue agreed (without statutory authority) not to enforce it.

There can’t be any illegality there (unless the statute breaches the Human Rights Act or EU law, which is another issue).

Richard

The decision was that the Revenue had no power to collect a charge to not pay tax because it only had the power to collect tax, which is aincient and not, as far as I know, based on statute

It would be interesting to see how a Bill could be enacted to not pay tax

So, I think there is substance to this

Richard

A lot that happens offshore is legal there, and not here

As the Italians have noted, legal in the UK does not stop evasion elsewhere

Richard