I didn't watch Sport Personality of the Year last night. I was always pretty sure my choice, Jo Pavey, would not win. And the small part of the programme I saw was excruciating.
But it was still profoundly disappointing to find Lewis Hamilton won. Apart from the obvious question about whether Formula 1 is a sport and the questions that need to be asked about so many of its financial arrangements the simple fact is that I thought that this was an event focussed on UK sporting achievements and Hamilton is a tax exile. How do those facts fit together?
Hamilton is obviously gifted. I won't deny that.
But not paying tax is no way to celebrate that.
For me being gifted is not enough. Being a good citizen is part of the deal as well. And he's clearly not winning in that category. He is, like it or not, a tax avoider by choice. Nothing else explains his Monaco tax residence. And that's a failure in my book.
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!
BBC Sports Personality of the Year has never been about tax. It’s about sporting achievement. Whether you like or dislike Hamilton, he won fairly and squarely with the public vote. Life may be all about tax for you, but it is not for the majority of the British public. Get over it.
You seem to miss the fact that I am entitled to an opinion
It’s an oddly right wing trait
Richard. The UK (and hopefully this blog) is a democracy where the “right to hold opinions” is a fundamental privilege.
The PSG is entirely apolitical but fails to understand why someone who disagrees with some of your (many) comments should be branded “right wing” …
Are we missing something here or can Britain’s tribulations be entirely blamed on the shortcomings of the “right wing”?
I’m sorry: I don’t have to brand you right wing when you make comments like that
They are right wing
They’re also bizarre
And if the PSG is apolitical and writes those comments it’s also deluded
Why shouldn’t he live in Monaco if he wants to? I suspect many would if they had his level of earnings. If he lives in Monaco lock, stock and barrel then why should the UK tax his earnings apart from those earned in the UK?
That is just too boring to reply to
How is pointing out that the BBC Sports Personality of the Year is a sporting contest, the rules of which make no mention of UK tax payment, in any way “right wing”? You are becoming a parody of yourself.
I think being resident here could be a qualifying requirement
I note how harsh rugby is on some conditions
And if I parody myself, so what? Is there something wrong in being me?
If someone disagreeing with you is denying your right to an opinion what have your dissagreeable opinions been doing to me?
I have lost your meaning…
I deny no -ne the right to an opinion
I do deny them a right to publish them here but only because there are so many other places where they could go
Why can you never admit that you are “wrong“ and why is anyone who disagrees with your agenda branded as a “right wing Telegraph reader” …
A few years ago the PSG was one of the first “contributors” to your blog … In this time your demeanour has changed from an objective, non-discriminatory, Christian person to one who now appears consumed with vindictive hatred.
Hopefully in the approaching season of good will to ALL men and women you will moderate your comments and become more tolerant of the opinions of others.
Respectfully, that’s just not true
I am intolerant of those who propose policies that abuse others
It is what the guy who got Christianity did too. You might recall he could be really quite stroppy
I make no apology for standing up for what I think to be right
And I have not changed one iota over the years: the criticisms by others of me have always been the same, I have always ignored them and there will be 1.6 million reads of this blog this year
No – he (Hamilton) shouldn’t.
Yes – It is NOT a sport.
But then again neither is golf IMHO. Sorry.
@Mike:
The majority of the British public are concerned with the negative effects of austerity.
Part of the point of tax justice is that austerity would be unnecessary if people and companies paid their taxes as good citizens do.
That’s the connection.
I was also slightly surprised, but for a different reason. Hamilton is often rather moody, so on the personality front I think McIlroy would come out ahead. The great British public has often voted for personality over achievement before, but here they had a chance to do both.
McIlroy would have been better
Pavey better still
In my view
And I agree with you re Hamilton: this has to be a petrolhead conspiracy
‘Conspiracy’ isn’t the right word, but Formula 1 fans do vote heavily when given the chance, so Hamilton got a big block of votes. Golf and Athletics don’t have that.
Rory was my choice, but I was delighted that Jo Pavey got on the podium too.
@ Kersti (and Richard),
Alas, the argument has once again been waylaid by quasi-theological discussions about the meaning of “Right Wing” and who is, and who isn’t on the right, so that your point, Kersti, has been lost, as has also the related point (and Richard has taken me to task over a similar point in the past, and he may do again), namely, that the Sports Personality of the Year was meant to be the British Sports Personality of the Year?
If I have this wrong, I plead a couch potato’s uninterest in sport, but it doesn’t invalidate the point I wish to make, which is this: surely someone who becomes a tax exile has effectively severed the crucial link between citizenship and taxation – which is one’s “subscription to a civilized society”, as FDR used to say. In consequence, have not tax exiles effectively renounced their citizenship, and thereby their eligibility for such an award?
In the current instance, my suggested exclusion of Lewis Hamilton rests on the correctness of my criterion of inclusion; if ANY sportsman of ANY nationality is eligible, then my argument for the non-inclusion of Lewis Hamilton in this competition dissolves.
My argument about the link between citizenship and taxes does not, of course, similarly dissolve. And please don’t trot out arguments about OAP’s retiring to Spain: they still remain citizens, insofar as they submit to UK taxation, their move to Spain being dictated by reasons of health and comfort, and not tax evasion.
Andrew
No argument on this occasion
I think you have it right
Richard
but those OAPs retiring to Spain will only pay tax in Spain, as long as they aren’t in the UK for more than 90 days a year.
It’s perfectly legal to be a British Expat, and as long as you follow the established rules pay no tax in the UK – though they do have to pay tax in the country they live in.
No one is arguing with that
Monaco has no tax
That is the whole point
Maybe you have not noticed?
So you would ban any Brit from living in Monaco? Or forcibly take away their passport?
I have long proposed that the UK has a passport tax
Those living in such places would then pay UK tax
This would not apply to those living in any EU state
Hi Richard,
Interesting discussion on lots of fronts over the Lewis Hamilton SPOTY award.
My question is: As C.Ronaldo won overseas SPOTY – I wondered if it were possible, or probable, that he paid more UK tax (from days as a well remunerated Man Utd player) than Mr. Hamilton ?
Possibly
Hamilton would have paid on British Grand Prix
“Apart from the obvious question about whether Formula 1 is a sport”
You can argue that Formula One is a procession, lacks competition or bores during the races due to lack of overtaking, but you can’t argue it’s not a sport. The level of fitness and endurance of the drivers is incredible, as it is for all top level motor sport.
Is fitness sport?
Fitness is not a sport, it is a condition, involving a vast amount of hard work, that is a prerequisite to perform well in almost any sport (I regard darts as a game).
Isn’t it time we dropped this ridiculous notion that sports personalities are in any respect “role models”. Some may be: Jo Pavey is clearly inspirational for example, and the manner in which Michael Clarke conducted himself on behalf of Cricket Australia following the death of Philip Hughes was also a great example of human behaviour.
But many of the higher profile sports personalities are young, usually male, extraordinarily rich, self-obsessed and surrounded by people who inflate their egos. Although it may be offensive to say it, in the end, young men with diamond earrings, personalised supercars and multiple tattoos are invariably boring. Better to dump the “sports personality” title and replace it with “sporting achievement” of the year award. Which Jo Pavey should clearly have won, as becoming a champion at the age of 42, following years of not quite winning, with children and limited funding is a remarkable achievement that is unlikely to be repeated and that has resonance for many people. Whereas a Brit winning the F1 title/beating the teammate in the vastly superior car will be repeated and has no such resonance.
And its not just tax: for environmental reasons motorsport should be discouraged, not venerated.
I have some sympathy with all of that
And I recognise my tattoo and diamond earning aversion is an age thing
But, I stress, not gender specific
Does anyone know whether he spends sufficient time in – and has sufficient connections with – the UK to be tax resident here? If not, is he simply being criticised for being non-resident?
I would imagine an F1 star would spend an awful lot of time travelling the world and wouldn’t need to contrive a situation to become non-UK resident.
I imagine that he could still be resident here and travel a great deal
It’s all about willingness to accept obligations, or not
Bale is also a tax exile as he lives in Spain. Should he be barred from participating?
Should there be a minimum threshold at which individuals pay UK tax to participate?
Besides, you should be happy. The comments from Lewis might well give HMRC good claim to him being UK Dom for IHT purposes…
Bale is not a tax exile
Spain taxes him, I am sure
There is economic substance to his being in Spain
Let’s stop being silly, I suggest
I am sure Hamilton is UK domiciled. Why not?
Hamilton is definitely not UK domiciled. Even the mechanics barely get to spend 3 months a year in UK, as a friend on mine working for Williams can attest to.
They get a couple of weeks break mid season, then some time after post season test in Abu Dhabi at the end of November then by the start of Feb they are out in Spain doing the pre-season tests before they go off to the first race in Oz….with very little time back at base in the UK between races.
You clearly do not understand domicile
You are discussing residence
And they may be resident still despite all that time elsewhere. Maybe
OK, so Spain taxes Bale. How about if Hamilton moved (back) to Switzerland or one of the Channel Islands, where he would be taxed, albeit at a rate less than the UK?
What I am saying is, where would be the cut-off for you? Should it just be tax-based? It all gets very messy all of a sudden.
On the point of residence, he is unlikely to meet either the family tie, work tie or 90 day tie. This would give him up to 90 or 120 days in the UK without being resident (depending on whether he was resident in one of the last 3 years). This is the law and, as discussed above, given his activities he is simply unlikely to spend that long in the UK.
What would be your resolution to this, request that he works more in the UK rather than the jurisdiction best suited to the activities being undertaken? Fly back to the UK more often just to guarantee residence?
Switzerland and the Channel Islands cut fixed rate tax deals
That’s why they’re tax havens
He could live here and be taxed here
He has admitted tax is a reason he does not
Unfortunately that response in no way answers my questions.
How would you like him to comply with the UK SRT? What specific action should he take?
What is an acceptable tax rate to determine whether he should be allowed to be nominated? Who decides what a fair level of tax is or whether that person has moved to another jurisdiction for tax purposes or not – i.e. what if he was a footballer who was contracted to the Monaco football team and part of his decision to move there was (of course) his post-tax pay.
Is tax the only issue which would prevent a British citizen being eligible?
I consider the fact that he has clearly chosen to live in a tax haven makes him ineligible
If there was economic reason to do so that would be different
E.g. A footballer playing for a Swiss club
But you are just playing pedantry and my position is quite clear
So still unclear as to how he should be forced to become UK res under the SRT?
I am not forcing anything
I am just saying he should not qualify for the competition
This is yet another symptom of our crass, dumbed down culture- where supposed skill and talent is put above much more significant and meaningful human attributes. It is also redolent of a culture obsessed with the superficialities of a certain type of ‘success’, especially a form of success that has limited social value. Rather sad -I’m glad i got rid of my TV!
(For what it’s worth I’ve always considered Formula one as an utterly moronic waste of time and a from of phallic extensionism – but i acknowledge that some find it exciting!)
Fine. SPOTY is all to do with rewarding sporting talent and that talent must be rewarded even when the nominees’ personal behaviour jars with the public; how bizarre that Ched Evans wasn’t nominated. If it means the winner has already rewarded themselves many millions of £ because tax rules are devised for and by the very people that dodge tax and people find that abhorrent what’s the issue? We’ve heard the same argument with people called bankers and they’re OK.
However looked at Ched Evans was a long way from qualifying
Of course. As a Sheffielder I would agree more than anyone. Apologies if people missed the sarcastic tone in my post 😛 In my opinion tax dodging causes as much misery in its own way as rape – it could be described as economic rape – and is therefore just as abhorrent.
No, I think rape more serious at a personal level
It is not an issue that I will permit further discussion on though
When it’s suggested that higher taxes in the UK will drive wealthy people abroad, you say that it’s rubbish, that wealthy people choose to live in the UK because of all that it offers (security, lifestyle etc) and that people will happily pay a bit more tax to continue to enjoy that.
Within reason, I think that’s correct.
So why is it that when someone chooses to live in Monaco it must only be because of tax? Might it not be because Monaco is a ‘millionaire’s playground’ with great weather and a fantastic* lifestyle for those able to afford it? (*if you like that sort of thing. It wouldn’t be my choice).
Tax is one of the reasons why Monaco has become what it is, but it’s ‘what it is’ that attracts the likes of Lewis Hamilton. Just like what London is has attracted people like Roman Abramovic and Madonna.
What Lewis winning SPOTY shows is that people value what Lewis delivered in terms of enjoyment from his performances and successes more than they value the tax he’s not paid by choosing to live elsewhere. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not known for extending courtesy towards people who disagree with ‘democracy’ in other matters.
There are very obviously more attractive places on the Riviera – of which I have fond memories
So Monaco can only be tax. Sorry, let’s not BS around this
And as for extending courtesy – do, a lot. Often to people who disagree with me
But I also speak truth to power, with shame
I would suggest that the majority of people who voted for Hamilton last night weren’t a)aware that he lived in Monaco and b) didn’t think “I’m not voting for him because he avoids tax”.
What happened last night was a democracy, something that we all aspire to, surely?
No: it was a phone in
Let’s not confuse the two please
They are very different
Double voting is possible in a phone in for a start
“There are very obviously more attractive places on the Riviera — of which I have fond memories”
Which demonstrates the validity of your claim that accountants who advise people how to avoid tax are overpaid. Despite being significantly more qualified (with the implication that I am also more intelligent), and working for nearly 50 years, I have never been to the Riviera.
Which is a ludicrous comment
I first went to the south of France when I had virtually no money as a student and worked my passage on my ability to rebuild the distributor of a Simca 1100 virtually everyday – which was the knackered vehicle used to take the group of friends I was with down there
We camped, of course
You and your pals obviously had more money as students than I did
Less than a full grant
And hard work during vacations
I had to study during vacations – allowed to work in the summer vacation but that left no time to go on holiday and anyway I needed the money to live on – earning enough to go on holiday would have left no time to study or to actually do so
Then clearly you did not study in the 70s
Sixties
Even less likely I believe you then
That was gratuitously offensive and shows that you don’t know what was considered normal by my generation. Students taking foreign holidays or being able to afford cars was not. £6 a week for a holiday job was.
I’m not much younger
And yes, I do know what was normal
I’m making very clear your own comment was utter humbug
Or drivel of the first order
Which would you prefer?
Grants were plenty enough with holiday work to get to the South of France if you wanted to – by hitching if need be – in the 60s
Pretty much as I did it for next to nothing in the 70s
Thirteen years, with a 35% increase in “Real” GDP/head in the interval between my starting at university and your doing so.
You think that you know what undergraduates thought when you were five?!?
Student grants in the 1960s were intended to pay for books and living on, not for luxuries, and foreign holidays, even camping ones, were regarded as luxuries (exchange controls limited the amount even the rich could take out of the country); six week’s work (some did eight) didn’t pay for a holiday in France, certainly not for a second-hand car.
I don’t do humbug or drivel.
Did you write that Monty Python sketch about living in a cardboard box?
If you went to universities in the 60s you were part of a staggeringly privileged and small elite
Accept it and stop talking nonsense
Of course I was part of a small elite – only the brightest got into university in my day, but it was an elite based on intellect not money. Manchester Grammar sent more boys to Oxford than Eton. Certainly I was vastly privileged being taught by geniuses: I only learned that my senior tutor worked at Bletchley Park as a teenager from a speech at his retirement dinner, the better of my two junior tutors was awarded a personal Professorship, Professor Coulson had students sitting on the floor when all the seats in the lecture theatre were filled.
That does not mean that I had lots of money like you. You have admitted that you got less than a full grant because your parent(s) had a fairly high income. My hard-working father really struggled to put three children through university, two of whom did post-graduate courses.
There is a massive difference between being part of an intellectual elite (OK my whole family was but people only remember my father’s, and to a justifiably lesser extent my, sporting achievements) and having money to throw around like Alan Sugar.
I was privileged, mostly because I inherited an ability/talent for mathematics, partly because I worked but not because I had spare cash. I expect that if I had gone to Southampton I could have worked every week of every vacation, and earned enough money to take foreign holidays like you, without having problems with exams. But I didn’t – I went to university to learn
I said I had less than a full grant period
I worked for the rest
Now go away and play your politics of envy and bitterness and patronisation and really rather nasty elitism that only Oxford can breed all combined elsewhere because they really do not reveal very attractive traits about you
You obviously do not understand.
It is indisputable that I was one of the most privileged students of my generation (partly because I was good at exams, partly because I was willing to work at my studies). Money didn’t come into it (there were some rich students in other colleges but none that were notioceable in mine): people wanted us because we were thought to have brains.
Why should I envy anyone except the likes of Seb Coe or Joe Root? (maybe you think I should envy Andrew Wiles – maybe I should but I don’t).
So when *I* say that holidays in the South of France were beyond my consideration, and I don’t know anyone who took one, you might just pause to think whether your suggestion that typical 1960s students could afford one have any conection with reality.
Why on earth should you think that I am bitter – I vastly enjoyed university, unlike school it was the best days of my life, (BTW identifying which university I attended means that you have checked up on me, maybe seeing that I am slimmer since there is an unflattering photograph of me on the internet, which rather debunks your claim to think that you are not much younger.) One of my friends had to live on less than a full grant because his parents had separated and his well-off father refused to pay the means-tested parental contribution – if that applied to you I could be sympathetic but not if you could take foreign holidays when I should have been working and/or studying.
This comes down to my denial of your claim that you knew what undergraduates were thinking when you were 5 years old and that £330 per year was enough to pay for books living expenses *and* for a holiday in the south of France.
Your offensive and inaccurate attacks on my personality are irrelevant.
You made it very clear you went Oxford. i couldn’t give a damn about it, and I have never looked you up. Where would I and why?
But you did show yourself an egotistical patronising **** when doing so with your comment on my outstanding university. Oxford all over I would say
If you honestly think on that basis I think a word you say has any relevance or even any relationship with reality you delude yourself even more
All future comments from you will be deleted
In intriguing that this post about what is essentially a side show of side shows should attract so much interest. Could you be a secret fan of Murtagh Kavanagh a prominent philosopher of his day? But perhaps not. In 1851 he was rooming with Karl Marx with a George Osborne just along the street.
You have lost me this time?
Who?
Umpteen apologies, and grovel grovel, as lunch was pending did not check. It is MORGAN KAVANAGH and there is a brief Wikipedia page. A very interesting person 1799-1874 and I would argue possibly a mentor of Marx in certain particular areas of thinking. They were resident in Soho at the time. Almost exactly 100 years later on the same spot the coffee bar boom began, one could argue the triumph of both capitalism and secularism.
I will take a look
Over coffee…
This whole thread has lost me here Richard. He is a man of impeccable standing EXCEPT in terms of your view of his residence/tax arrangements. Are you seriously saying that a cleverly non – sporting matter like tax should be somehow woven into this sporting popularity contest?
Yes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-2386695/Rory-McIlroys-6-7m-Florida-mansion–video-tour-golf-star.html
So you as an Irish man want another Irish man to win. That’s it.
I actually said I wanted Jo Pavey to win, very clearly
“Are you seriously saying that a cleverly non—sporting matter like tax should be somehow woven into this sporting popularity contest?”
Well somehow it got woven in (except for the sporting bit) when Jimmy Carr was accused of tax avoidance, and the public seemed to think it made perfect sense then.
Jimmy Carr was denounced as a hypocrite because he took part in a TV advert accusing Barclays of tax avoidance/evasion (without any evidence that I saw) and was then exposed as “avoiding” millions of pounds of tax.
It was a TV sketch, but much the same
And that was not the sole reason: Chris Moyles was condemned without a similar act
perhaps we should be asking the question of WHY we have these types of awards for people who are already vastly rewarded and have the privilege of doing something they love – is that not enough in itself. The idea of massively rewarding people who are already massively rewarded can only be evidence of a society excessively sycophantic towards wealth and celebrity status an excellent soporific that renders people narcoleptic and oblivious to more fundamental issues. Right wingers always tell me I’m a party pooper but I think their part is worth ‘pooping’ on!
The best parties are populated by poopers
So everyone who voted in or watched SPOTY is a right winger? And believe me, most sportsmen couldn’t give a damn about the BBC SPOTY award. Do you think McIlroy would rather win SPOTY or the US Masters? They just turn up once a year, smile for their fans and that’s it. They’d rather be anywhere else. As Murray was last year.
I said no such thing – and not can it be implied
But I am saying you’re joining the time wasting lists of commentators
presume you will be deleted in future
OK Richard, source for the goose etc:
If tax ethics should have a bearing on non – tax awards shouldn’t it work the other way around? Why for example should operators of privatised services, with appalling records on customer service and staff relations, be awarded the Fair Tax Mark? Why should they be offered uncritical free publicity on your blog?
P.S This is usually when you run and hide behind your moderator, so I’m not expecting to hear back from you.
The Fair Tax Mark assesses tax disclosure
It does nothing else
And as you are so clearly wasting my time you will not get a reply on here
So, the “Fair Tax Mark” assesses tax disclosure, and nothing else. Fair enough. Does what it says on the tin.
But, you say the “Sports Personality of the Year” should assess not only “sports” and “personality”, but tax also. Which is a lot more than it says on the tin.
I do not see how that is a consistent argument?
Both comments are complete distortions
So I will not grace you with a response
“I am sure Hamilton is UK domiciled. Why not?”
Because since his dad is of Granadian origin, it’s likely that his dad’s tax domicile would be Granadian which would mean that unless Lewis had formally adopted UK tax domicile he would also have Granadian tax domicile.
That’s the way the rules work. Unless you are now going to argue that if the above is the case, Lewis should renounce his legal UK non-dom status and formally adopt UK tax dmicile?
Sorry – but at some point it looks to me like a domicile of choice has been made here
Or I could claim Irish domicile and it would farcical if I could
Oh dear, you really don’t seem to understand how the domicile rules work.
To change one’s domicile of birth, it is necessary to prove that (i) you have permanently or indefinately left the country of your domicile of birth and (ii) you have chosen to reside permanently or indefinately in the country of your new chosen domicile.
If (for example) your intention was to retire to Ireland you would almost certainly be of Irish tax domicile. That’s not a farce, it’s a fact which follows the rules and which happens all the time.
As for Lewis Hamilton, he has left the UK so obviously there’s no clear intention to reside in the UK permanently or indefinately. So where are you claiming that Lewis has ‘chosen’ to be domiciled? By choosing to move to Monaco, it might be Monaco but given his domicile of origin it’s very unlikely to be the UK.
The point is, the bar is set high to change one’s domicile for the obvious reason that if it wasn’t, it would be too easy to change UK domicile.
As earlier you accused someone of not understanding the domicile rules I’m surprised you don’t understand them yourself.
As explained there is no such requirement at all
You just stop claiming yo be non dom and that’s the end of the matter
That’s a fact
What you are referring to is a legal defence required to maintain the status – which I know inside out
I am talking reality
Anyone can choose not to abuse
Or seek help to do so
That’s where morality comes I to tax. No doubt you deny there is any such thing
It’s very difficult to change one’s domicile. Many people live in the UK for decades (literally almost their entire life) and die here without acquiring a domicile of choice.
Hamilton’s grandparents came here in the 1950s from the Caribbean. It is virtually impossible to prove that someone has acquired a domicile of choice whilst they are living, so in all likelihood Hamilton’s father is not domiciled in England and Wales. It therefore follows that Hamilton himself is not domiciled in England and Wales. Given that Hamilton now lives in Monaco, the necessary intention to reside here permanently is absent. Hamilton is almost certainly not domiciled here. And you can be damn certain that Hamilton’s advisers will be doing all they can to ensure it stays that way.
Stop talking nonsense
You submit a tax return as a domiciled person
It’s easy
You offer all the excuses of the tax abusing lawyer
“You submit a tax return as a domiciled person”
Utter nonsense.
I have been submitting a tax return for decades and have never once claimed any domicile.
You have the CHOICE to make a domicle claim if it makes a difference to your tax affairs.
The relevant question is in a SUPPLEMENTARY return, SA109, Q22 and even then you only fill it in if you are claiming to be NON-UK domiciled.
A non-dom living in the UK would have no need to self-assess his non-dom status unless and until it made a difference to their tax affairs.
And as Ed Ryan makes clear (and as you would know if you knew anything about the rules) changing domicile is not easy – if it were everyone would be doing it!
I know these rules very well. I have practiced tax for over 30 years
No one has to claim they are non dom
That is the end if their claim
They do not make it
As is usual, pedantry of the sort to which you are clearly addicted is just wrong
Now stop wasting my time. I am very well aware of what I am talking about
Your ignorance is dangerous.
You really think that all someone who is currently considered tax domiciled in Ireland has to do is fill in their UK tax return to say they are now UK tax domiciled and the Irish tax authorities will accept it? That would drive a bit of a whole through Irish IHT and their domicile levy wouldn’t it.
You say you understand the rules well yet thought it ‘farcical’ that you could have Irish domicile yet such a status would be a fact if you intended to retire to Ireland.
The reason it’s obvious you don’t understand the rules is that you think it only works one way. Easy to gain UK domicile, difficult to lose UK domicile but there are other countries which have domicile as a concept (Ireland being the obvious one) and they make it as difficult to change domicile of birth as does the UK.
You cannot just fill in a form and change your tax domicile.
I guarantee you I am right
Anyone wishing to say they have adopted English domicile will not be challenged by HMRC
So you are pragmatically wrong
http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/circumstances/moving/tax-residence.html#sec2
And there’s the link to the Irish tax authorities where they say the same thing. That it’s not easy to change Irish domicile. But you think all you have to do is file a UK tax return and say you’re not Irish domiciled any more?
So will you publish this and admit you were wrong? Up to you.
I haven’t even bothered to read it because the reality is a person second generation in the UK with a UK passport who has never lived in the place of their grandparent’s domicile can very obviously say they have adopted a domicile of choice and no tax authority will challenge them, anywhere, or in Ireland, which is the only okace on earth with an interest in doing so
I”m sorry. If you want to follow your fantasies please do. No doubt you peddle them for a lot of money. I live in the real tax world in which I am emphatically right
Oh, and do remember only the UK and Ureland have tax based domicile which also makes your arguments pretty futile.
“Oh, and do remember only the UK and Ureland have tax based domicile which also makes your arguments pretty futile.”
Australia, India, France, Italy, Pakistan, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the US all have concepts of domicile similar to that of the UK which apply to all taxes or to IHT. Not to mention the channel Islands, Gibraltar and the IOM.
And New Zealand.
And South Africa.
The point being that domicile is considered separately to residence.
“Anyone wishing to say they have adopted English domicile will not be challenged by HMRC
So you are pragmatically wrong”
You are still not following this are you Richard? It would be the Irish tax authorities that would challenge this, just as HMRC would challenge a claim by a UK domiciled individual that they had switched to Irish domicile.
You’re in a hole, Richard. Stop digging.
I’m in no hole
I am spot on
As I have just said elsewhere, of course a person just off the boat at Holyhead can’t give up Irish domicile there and then
But we were discussing a second generation immigrant who has never lived in the country of domicile and whose parent has not ether
Economic substance shows they have abandoned their domicile or origin if they ever acquired it and if that’s what they chose to say no one would challenge it
This is exactly my situation, by they way
Now stop wasting my time quoting absurd references like the IOM et al. They don’t have any taxes to which this applies
Now go away and sell your tax abuse if that’s what you want to do
Richard
I’m with Geoff and Ed Ryan on this.
Your knowledge of the domicile rules is lacking and/or out of date.
No it isn’t
You are completely missing the point
HMRC have never, I am quite sure, insisted a person be a non-Dom when they gave asked to be domiciled
I am certain I am right but you are refusing to recognise what I am saying because you are so stuck up your legalistic approach
No I’m not missing the point at all. I practice this stuff all day long.
It is a fact that the domicile of origin is very sticky. HMRC cannot have it both ways. It keeps UK-domiciled within the UK net even once they have left the country, and conversely enables foreigners to avoid falling into the UK net.
Someone’s domicile status is a question of fact (domicile of origin) and a question of intent (domicile of choice). On occasion, like when a UK person leaves the UK permanently, it is a question of statute (for 3 years).
Someone’s domicile status does not change year by year. What can and does change is whether or not they elect to be taxed as a non-dom in any given year. It doesn’t change their right to claim it, and not claiming it in one year does not change their right to claim it the next year.
An Irish person coming to the UK may wish to claim to be UK-domiciled, but the Irish tax authorities won’t just accept that they are no longer Irish domiciled just like that! It cuts both ways.
This is only an issue with Ireland
And of course a person just off the boat at Holyhead can’t give up Irish domicile there and then
But we were discussing a second generation immigrant who has never lived in Ireland and whose parent has not ether
Economic substance shows they have abandoned Irish domicile and if that’s what they chose to say no one would challenge it
Now stop wasting my time
Richard
Now hold on a minute.
What has economic substance got to do with it? That is totally irrelevant to the law of domicile in the UK send you well know it.
You are once again trying to apply the law of the land as you think if should be, not on how it is.
I cannot believe that you acted for and advised non-doms on the UK. The cost of your PI premiums after multiple law suits would have been unaffordable.
My last comment on this issue
Let me use a real case well known to me: a person who has parents born out of the UK without English as a parent tongue
Those parents came to the UK before she was born. They have never acquired UK passports but they never showed the slightest inclination to leave. One has died and his ashes were spread here
The daughter has a UK passport. She has never considered the country of her parent’s origin her home, ever. She is not familiar with domicle. She consideres herself British.
She has never completed to be non-dom. But she clearly acquired a domicile of origin outside the UK
The country of origin has no knowledge of her and I am sure would not consider her domiciled. But no form was completed to say so
This is all based on substance, which has everything (I mean everything) to do with domicile. I know lawyers play form – but that’s because they know they are seeking to pervert substance which is at the very core of the domicile concept
The person I refer to is my wife. I have not a moment’s doubt she is domiciled in the UK. As a matter of fact. I do not expect HMRC or the Irish authorities to challenge the fact, ever
I think it fair to say I understand domicile and the risks inherent in it vastly better than you do
Which is probably why there have been no PI claims
And it is why all the nonsense you’re talking is just that – because what you’re trying to abuse substance and domicile is about substance to which firm has had to be added to make it manageable – which is when the abuse began.
And I am bored with saying so to people so wedded to form that they cannot tell reality from legal fiction of their own creation
Richard
An interesting example.
It is quite probable that your wife’s father was already domiciled in the UK when your wife was born if he had the intention of remaining permanently in the UK. A child takes the domicile of the father at the time of birth (or of the mother if the parents were not married), in which case your wife’s domicile of origin was England. The domicile or origin is very “sticky” and your wife has clearly not since tried to acquire a new domicile of choice after the age of 18 so yes, she always has been English (UK) domiciled.
If her father had come to England initially for a temporary period, then he would have been Irish-domiciled at the time of her birth, and so Irish would have been her domicile of origin. In your wife’s case, it seems clear that she acquired a new domicile of choice in England after the age of 18 by intending to stay permanently in the UK. She would have done nothing at all to retain her domicile of origin.
So yes, in your wife’s case, she is unquestionably UK domiciled.
And the point you agree with is, then. that substance and not form filling is what defines domicile
A point denied all along by those who have claimed otherwise here
And in the process you agree that domicile is actually really quite easily changed on the basis of substance and nothing esle
I rest my case
Richard
No I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that, under the law which HMRC accepts as it works both ways, that the domicile of origin is very sticky. In your wife’s particular case, her domicile of origin is clearly UK (technically England), and she has taken no steps to try to acquire a new domicile of choice. It takes specific pro-active actions in order to acquire a new domicile of choice to override the domicile of origin.
I would strongly dispute the domicile of origin point
I very much suspect she had a domicile of origin in Ireland but both she and her father changed later to a domicile of choice
All I know suggests that to be true
When I could not possibly say
Nor could they
Nor could any tax authority
And there were no proactive steps unless acquiring a UK passport was one – but that was not conscious and only applicable to my wife and not her father
Which shows substance and not form matters – as only good practitioner should know on this issue (and most deny and so are dangerous to their clients)
And domicile is a crass way of taxing
Richard
The law of the land, which is reality rather than your myth of how the law should operate, is that the domicile of origin is very relevant. I don’t think she had a domicile of origin in Ireland based on what you said about her father’s intentions at that time.
A passport is irrelevant to the domicile status.
You can’t have it both ways. If you would prefer that the domicile of origin was not so sticky, then many Brits who have left the UK would have found it far easier to shed their UK domicile status.
Respectfully, ou are quite simply wrong
Of course domicile is important
But you gave no clue as to why or how any tax authority determined the chane in my late father-in-law’s status because I am sure without a doubt if was never documented and yet clearly happened
So my argument on substance is obviously correct and your argument on form a last resort
I accept there is a need for that last resort but to suggest domicile of choice is not open to anyone and is changed based on the substance of behaviour is just not true
So please can we deal with reality? And stop arguing about an absurd extreme view ( those other than mine presented here)?
“The laws of the UK make it clear that domicile is not easily changed, and so it is unlikely that an adult‘s operative domicile will alter unless the individual makes profound and extensive changes to his or her lifestyle, habits and intentions”
HMRC Residence, Domicile & Remittance Basis manual paragraph 23020.
The manual also includes extensive instructions to HMRC staff about how to investigate claims to changes of domicile.
Yet you say all that is required is to tick a box.
Who is wrong? HMRC or you?
I have already made clear why I am right
And I am
And HMRC would agree in the situation being discussed
No
You started off saying that Lewis Hamilton would have acquired a domicile of choice by now, then when it was explained that was unlikely you claimed that all you had to do was make a claim and you could change domicile, then you claimed only Ireland and the UK had domicile rules obiously ignorant of the fact that many other countries do (I just hope for the sake of their families that you never advised any Indian or Pakistani businessmen on IHT planning) and then finally you invented a scenario which fitted a change of domicile and claimed it proved you were right about that being a change of domicile.
If every time you lose an argument you simply change the reference of the argument then you can cling to your claim of being right. But anyone reading this thread will know the reality.
I’m sorry: I never said any such thing
I always assumed Hamilton domiciled here
I still do
And you made all the rest up
You now have a history of time wasting. You will be deleted in future on all issues – because this is just the latest case of you trolling
Actually HMRC may contest an individual has acquired a domicile of choice in the UK if, for instance, he or she claims the inheritance exemption when their UK domiciled spouse or civil partner dies, particularly if that individual has claimed the remittance basis for a number of years.
Obviously this is less of an issue now it is possible for a non UK domiciled spouse/civil partner to elect to be deemed domiciled for inheritance tax purposes, but would you admit that it’s a possibility for HMRC to argue that someone hasn’t acquired a domicile of choice if there’s a substantial amount of inheritance tax at stake.
HMRC’s own manual is quite clear that any change in domicile is “never to be lightly inferred”
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/rdrmmanual/rdrm23030.htm