The report the Tax Justice Network and Tax Research LLP issued on Friday concerning the illegality of the UK's domicile laws has attracted considerable interest already. On Friday Labour MP John McDonnell, who is standing as a contender in the forthcoming Labour leadership elections tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament as a result of the report being published. It reads as follows:
EDM Non-Domicile Tax Status
That this House notes that it is estimated that at least £1 billion tax revenue is divided by those declaring themselves non-domicile; is concerned that non-domicile status is in contravention of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, as it discriminates on the basis of national origin; and therefore calls upon HM Treasury to review non-domicile status.
In addition he has tabled the following parliamentary questions to Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the front runner in that leadership contest:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether HM Revenue & Customs policy in relation to domicile and non-domicile tax status is compatible with the 1976 Race Relations Act (as amended)?
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice HM Revenue & Customs has received with regard to domicile and non-domicile tax status and race discrimination laws in the last four years, and if he will place copies of any advice in the Library of the House?
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review domicile and non-domicile tax status?
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (a) how many UK citizens have non-domicile tax status; and (b) how many investigations HM Revenue & Customs has undertaken into the tax returns of those with non-domicile tax status for each of the last ten years for which figures are available?
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax he estimates has been avoided by those declaring themselves non-domiciled in each of the last five years for which figures are available?
I am grateful to John for this support, which is indicative of he wide range of political support and interest this blog and the wok of TJN generates.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am Indian and married a scot in 1970. Being female i came to learn recently, that I automatically took the domicile of my husband on marriage. Over the years I bought properties and rented them out. My husband had to sign the loans on these, aswell as myself as he was the wage earner. I have had many problems with the revenue on the sale of one house concerning CGT. They said my husband had to pay CGT, but did not request I did too. They even stopped me from being liable for the tax on rental income by transferring it to my husband entirely. Today ihave to go for a divorce because it dseemed the only way to end the hell I have gone through. Added to this my husband worked in the offshore oil industry for nearly thirty years. I don’t know if he was self-employed ir employed under a hypothetical PAYE tax system. My husband concels everything from me. His accountants and lawyers I also believe, have engaged in massive atempts to deceive me on so many of these issues, simply because I was a wife. The recent Arctic Systems case drew my attention to the arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which one wife is treated as opposed to another . When I did all the work on renting the properties I was pressured by the revenue under Section 282A ICTA 1988 to sharethis with my husband. I could not of course receive similar entitlements to my husband’s employment income as Mrs Jones could of Arctic Systems. This country stinks especially its accountants and lawyers who have made hay because of the confusion in the tax laws.