Accountancy Age has reported the results of its survey on the domicile rules:
The non-domicile rules allowing wealthy individuals with foreign connections to avoid tax on offshore income are unjust and should be dropped, a poll of Accountancy Age readers has concluded.
When asked for their views on the controversial rules, which chancellor Alistair Darling last week implied he was keen on retaining, 56% of readers opted for the rule to be dropped, saying that it was unjust and that inequality was 'spiralling out of control'.
A further 10% said that, at the very least, a formal review should take place. The remainder said either 'these people are good for the economy' or 'it's a hyped-up row and there are so few of them it doesn't matter'. Almost 300 readers responded to the online survey.
The poll's results will feed the debate on the rules, after renewed criticism of them in recent weeks.
I welcome this result. It's heartening to see that there is a sensible core to the profession, which I may be guilty of underestimating on occasion.
Justice requires that the domicile rules go. If even accountants agree, what's the argument for retaining them?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Much as I agree that non-Dom has to go, this kind of ad-hoc free-participation survey has no statistical value whatsoever.
Unfortunately there is just no way of knowing whether the sample of individuals who bothered to click on this survey represents the views of Accountancy Age readers, never mind the views of Accountants generally.
Secondly the design of this survey is poor. The options presented do not represent a sliding scale as is implied. It would be possible for non-Dom to be ‘unjust’ but also ‘good for the economy’.
Colman
True
But interesting none the less
That, I agree, is as far as it goes
Richard
Colman – as the news editor of the magazine, can I just offer this partial comment – we offer people the opportunity to comment on the range of options we outline – it’s always difficult to encompass everything in this kind of poll. If you click on the headline to any of our polls, on the left you can see a link asking ‘Unhappy with these options. Send your opinions to letters@accountancyage.com.’ Clearly we’re not publicising this well enough as we haven’t had any complaints!
More generally, yes it’s not anywhere near a compelling opinion poll, but it does help to raise the issue of how popular ditching the rules would be. To date, I can reveal that only one of our readers has written to us saying this is an unfair poll. If accountants were broadly supportive of the non-dom rules, I’d expect more.
I actually think, and I may be wrong, that the profession more than most recognises the unfairness of the rules. What position they take on the economic benefits is what may be interesting…
Hopefully it helps to spark debate – write us a letter and we will publish it if you disagree with what we have written!
Alex
Thanks Alex
You can’t be fairer than that
Richard
Alex
I do agree that this kind of poll does help stir the pot: a genuinely valuable activity.
My concern is that frequently conclusions are drawn that are not supportable by flimsy polling evidence. This is not something which your writer is guilty of.
The eyebrow-raising result should encourage the commissioning of a statistically reliable survey to gain a deep and wide understanding of the views of the profession on these matters which are currently gaining a wide interest – thanks in part to the tireless Richard.
Colman
Colman
I ould not agree more. This is the way to go.
And thanks for the kind words.
Richard