There has been some debate on a passport tax on the blog, so let me draw attention to the TUC's proposal on this issue.
I think it well known that I wrote it, and think it the right direction of travel for the UK to help beat tax havens.
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!
Thanks Richard. That certainly makes your comments in the other blog much more understandable.
On the face of it, the TUC proposal sounds a fair one and apparently much more reasonable than the US version, which (from what others have said) does appear to have some undesirable consequences for certain categories of American citizens.
The non-dom arrangement – as far as I know pretty much unique to the UK – is an obvious anachronism which surely needs to be done away with. As regards non-resident UK passport-holders, one tends to view things from one’s own perspective. As such, I admit I hadn’t fully realised the scale of contrived non-residence in the UK by the likes of the ‘Monaco boys’, about which something clearly needs to be done.
So, while some details may need to be looked at more closely if the TUC proposal is accepted in principle, it does seem to me to represent a good ‘direction of travel’. I wish it well on its journey!
Richard
I was born in Jersey and I have a British passport. I have never lived in the UK. I do not work in financial services and have never done so. I do not have a vote in UK elections and nor would I need or want one.
If Jersey was not on your “white list”, then it looks like you would expect me to pay UK tax under your proposals, which would be both absurd and inequitable. I am amused that Luxembourg, Austria, Malta and Cyprus would be on your white list. That makes no sense.
Jersey should, of course, having agreed to sign up to all of the transparency requests demanded by Mr Cameron, be on the UK’s white list. If not, then it would put an entirely different slant on your proposals.
Jersey will face a challenge then, won’t it?
And why not?
Why should it soak the UK tax system?
Richard
“No taxation without representation” remains a cornerstone of Western democracy.
In any event, Jersey would surely be on any UK white list after all its recent commitments and undertakings.
Promises are cheap
This document needs considerable updating, primarily because much of it is now actually in place. The concept of ordinary residence has been abolished. The statutory residence test has a concept of residence being sticky for those that are leaving the UK and the number of ties is used in that legislation to determine the number of days an individual can be in the UK before becoming resident. Members of the House of Lords and Commons are now automatically taxable as domiciled residents.
Personally I don’t think a white list is necessary as long as an individual is clearly living outside the UK and very rarely in the country, although I can appreciate that you might want to use one where the situation was slightly less obvious.
I am surprised you would wish to give relief to a non-UK national on non-UK source income for the first 4 years. I am aware that sort of thing does exist in some other countries, but it isn’t universal by any means.
It’s in place because I served on a committee that wrote much of what has been introduced in the dying days of the last labour government
if this plan looks like what happened it is because it was intended to pressurise delivery
And it worked
Now we need the rest – which most (incidentally) think is only a matter of time
Am not a tax person and although the existing UK rules are complex I found the TUC document complex and tuned out after a couple of pages. In any case the UK establishment likes playing host to the world’s great and good (a la wimbledon effect) and any hint of change to the non-dom rule I would have thought is doubtful to happen.
The economist had an article surveying global regimes some time ago and the US is an outlier and its personal tax system is quite distorted and difficult for modern international workforces. Would not suggest heading in that direction.
Technical change requires technical argument
Sorry: it doesn’t come from whimsy