There's much talk in the press this morning of a 'climb-down' by the Treasury on domicile. This is, according to the press, a source of considerable embarrassment. As with most comment on this issue, this seems to be almost entirely wrong.

First, if you have a consultation it should be real, in other words the possibility of change must exist. Now that a rather small change has resulted from that process it is apparently deeply embarrassing according to the profession. I think that is absurd. I'd like to issue a plea for some calm and reason here. Otherwise I can see the end of consultation. No minister is going to consult if this is the outcome. Why should they?

Second, let's look at what the 'clarification' actually says. Issued by Dave Hartnett, acting chair of HM Revenue & Customs (who popped it into my inbox, for which I was grateful), the key part says:

The consultation process will run to 28 February. However, I want to make clear that the Government's intention - which will be set out in the legislation to be brought forward - has always been to ensure that:

- those using the remittance basis will not be required to make any additional disclosures about their income and gains arising abroad. So long as they declare their remittances to the UK and pay UK tax on them, they will not be required to disclose information on the source of the remittances;

- there will be no retrospection in the treatment of trusts and the tax changes will not apply to gains accrued or realised prior to the changes coming into effect;

- money brought into the UK to pay the £30,000 charge will not itself be taxable; and

- it will continue to be possible to bring art works into the UK for public display without incurring a charge to tax.

In addition, we will continue to discuss with the US authorities how the £30,000 charge can become creditable against US tax.

This makes the following clear:

1) More change is likely as yet;

2) Only remittances need be declared and overseas income need not be. However, for those who take any comfort from this, let me assure you Mr Hartnett is not a tax inspector for nothing. What he says is technically true, and it's also absolutely correct that so long as tax is paid on remittances no enquiry will arise on the source. But from my experience of this issue (and I have done investigations on remittances) the moment you claim a remittance is not taxable the fun starts. It is always the case that you then have to prove why the sum remitted was capital and for that reason anyone who plays the remittance game has to keep the most meticulous of records of their income, gains and capital (which few are capable of doing). So this assurance is thankfully very carefully worded and very hollow indeed. What it's effectively saying is you'll pay tax on all your remittances unless you do disclose their source.

3) The comment on trusts seems to be exactly what it says: a clarification that makes clear the legislation is not retrospective. I never thought it was the government's intention that it should introduce retrospective legislation. But let's also be clear, the fact that future gains will be taxed makes clear that what I say in para (2) above has to be right: information on the source of remittances will be required if anyone wants to claim that no tax is due;

4) Not paying tax on tax has long been an established principle. So not paying tax to bring in the £30,000 tax payment is fair.

5) Temporary imports of art will be allowed. Of course this will require a definition of a work of art, what an import is, what temporary means, what public display means and more besides. Plus anti-avoidance legislation. That will be several pages by the time it is done. I guess 10 people will benefit. And those who lobbied for this will then complain about the length of the Finance Bill.

As for US double tax relief, keep whistling if you like: it won't happen.

So, where's the climbdown? I can't see one. All I see is a hot air reaction and an undermining of the consultation process by those who demand it take place.

Another sad day for the professions then.