Jenny Davey and David Smith
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
A LEADING adviser to the Treasury this weekend lambasted plans for a tax crackdown on nondomiciled UK residents, heaping further embarrassment on chancellor Alistair Darling.
Bob Wigley, the chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe, Middle East and Africa and a member of the chancellor’s “wise men” group who advise the Treasury on how to keep London competitive, told The Sunday Times: “This proposal was ill-conceived from the start. While it clearly has some political attraction, the economic case is flawed.”
Other investment banks are known to have lobbied the Treasury, arguing that the new rules could damage London’s position as a financial centre. Darling has faced an avalanche of protests about the tax measures since details were unveiled last month.
Nondoms are people whose family roots are outside the UK but who work here. The proposed changes would levy an annual £30,000 on them if they want to avoid UK tax on foreign income they keep outside Britain. More significantly, Darling also wants to clamp down on nondoms’ use of offshore vehicles for tax avoidance.
A senior figure from Goldman Sachs where as many as 40% of employees are thought to be nondoms has already been to the Treasury to argue against the changes. A group of banks has arranged to see the Treasury next week. And the London Investment Banking Association has complained to the chancellor.
But Wigley’s intervention is particularly embarrassing for the chancellor because of his position as an adviser to the Treasury.
Wigley is UK-domiciled and is a member of the court of the Bank of England. He said: “These measures were partly aimed at the nondomiciled billionaires. They could, if not withdrawn or substantially amended, drive offshore young upcoming talent that currently chooses to live in London, so making London the leading global financial centre.”
He added: “When you consider that most of those who could be driven away probably don’t use the state education or health systems but spend a lot of their above-average incomes here, so contributing disproportionately to Vat receipts, these are exactly the good-value taxpayers London should want to retain.”
Wigley has made direct representations to the chancellor in the past few weeks. He also wrote to Kitty Ussher, the City minister, expressing his concerns before Christmas.
It is believed that as many as 600 out of 6,000 Merrill Lynch employees in Europe could be affected by the tax changes. Other big investment banks are believed to have similar numbers of nondoms.
Wigley said: “By introducing change, the government has introduced uncertainty into what has for a long time appeared assured. It may be too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but real political will to safeguard London’s future as a leading global financial centre is required.”
Lord (Digby) Jones, trade and investment minister, has voiced concerns, as has Paul Myners, chairman of Land Securities and an ally of Gor-don Brown. CBI deputy director-gen-eral John Cridland said this weekend that Darling had underestimated the damage the tax change would do. “It is more and more clear that the ramifications of this go much deeper than the chancellor realised,” he said.
“This has significant implications both for the City of London and the wider economy. We need to remember how mobile a lot of these guys are. They can up sticks and work at a desk in Dubai or Basle at a week’s notice.”
Until now, the suggested £30,000 annual levy on people wanting nondom status has been the focus of the debate over the measures.
But since detailed proposals were published by the Treasury last month, it has become apparent that measures to clamp down on the use of offshore trusts could be far more significant for large numbers of nondoms. If enacted, the new rules would mean that nondoms would have to pay capital-gains tax on profits they make on houses owned through offshore vehicles. And the Treasury is proposing rules that tax might be payable when nondoms bring capital into Britain.
Concerns have been voiced about the potential impact on charities and the arts. Bringing a work of art into Britain after April could be construed as importing capital.
Lord Rothschild said this weekend: “I know one family that has donated over £50m to good causes in the UK over the years. I’m sceptical that this will go on in the new environment.”
The CBI estimates nondoms account for £16 billion of spending and £7 billion of tax revenues annually.
The planned tax will raise £800m in 2009-10 and £500m in 2010-11, according to Treasury calculations.
Articles from our sister site WSJ.com:
You may be asked to subscribe to read certain articles
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The new Non-Dom tax law change seem to be driven and condoned by the 'politics of envy' and lack of understanding.
Non Doms pay fair share here. They already are required to pay 40% tax on any and all Offshore income brought into the UK. Americans however must pay USA tax too on unearned income, (interest, capital gains, etc,) They do not have choice. They currently pay tax twice on money here! This is why they need offshore investments to pay tax once on money never to come into in the UK.
I'm a UK Resident USA citizen and Director of a UK Company with employees. We pay a lot UK Tax and VAT. I report my UK income to the UK as well ALL worldwide income to the IRS in the USA. We are not in the UK permanently, so the majority of my savings and investments are offshore and taxed by USA. I can't afford to account for that under two systems. If the law passes my family must leave the UK. Thats many thousands fold bigger loss to UK and HMRC! I am not alone. -GO FIGURE ... DOH!!!!
J. Otis, London,
What the government doesn't seem to realise is that this tax change will really hurt many multinational married couples.
I'm an American, married to a Brit, who has lived, worked and paid UK taxes here for 30 years. I have a small US income which is more than £1,000 but FAR less than the £30,000 per year the government now wants to charge me for the privilege of living here.
I already have to declare world wide income to the US tax authories, now I will have to do it for the UK authorities too. This means that I will no longer have a tax efficient way of managing my savings or investments as they will always be liable to the higher of the two tax regimes.
The last time there was taxation without representation, the natives rebelled. Remember the Boston Tea Party?
PS my husband's so cross about this, he certainly won't be voting Labour again!
Jean
Jean Leston, Haslemere,
I can understand the resentment of your readers about non-dom tax stauts, however, the majority of us are not rich tax avoiders.
I am a university professor working in the UK but I am a US citizen. I am perfectly happy to pay my share of tax, however, if I do some conslting in the US, I will be liable for tax in BOTH countries.
This is in violation of the US-UK Tax Treaty which precludes double taxation and the proposed legislation would conflict with that treaty.
Essentially, it means if I make £1,200 consulting during the year, I will have to pay £30,000 to avoid being double taxed. How fair is that?
J, Stoke,
John from London (comment 3), you're complaining you already pay 17.5% VAT on everything you spend - guess what, so do all the rest of us AFTER we've paid income tax and national insurance.
The concept of fairness is important and objective, if you choose to live in a country you should make a fair and equal percentile contribution to it as the rest of us do. Taxes are not just for 'little people'.
David, Brighton,
Are these young upcoming talents the same breed of talents who have driven the world economy to the brink of recession. We're going to miss them when they're gone.
Erin, London, UK
Contractors do not get sick or holiday pay, and have significantly less security than permanent employees. They are appealing to employers for this reason, and up until recently, the benefit of the higher income, helped also ensure it's been attractive for the employee. By attacking Managed Services Companies and now Off Shoring and the non-doms, the Government is making it less appealing to work in the UK as a contractor.
It seems to me that this will just help to drive out a lot of the high value employees, and as per the article, damage the status of London as a business and financial capital.
Chris, London, United Kingdom
If non-doms don't like this new system, they can avoid it by "opting in" to the UK tax system. They would then pay tax on their incomes at exactly the same rates as everybody else. What could be fairer then that?
Jonathan Speck, London, UK
Bob Wigley, the chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe, Middle East and Africa and a member of the chancellorâs âwise menâ group said that âWhen you consider that most of those who could be driven away probably donât use the state education or health systems but spend a lot of their above-average incomes here, so contributing disproportionately to Vat receipts, these are exactly the good-value taxpayers London should want to retain.â
You could make this argument for any multi millionaire and the fact that Lord Rothschild: said this weekend: âI know one family that has donated over £50m to good causes in the UK over the years only convinces me even more that they are donating money that should have been paid to the Revenue
One law for the very rich and one law for the rest of us.
Richard, Vancouver, BC, Canada
I'm not nearly in the top percentile of wealthy non-doms but manage to spend 350 thousand pounds a year living in London. That provides 60 thousand pounds a year in VAT alone, excluding council tax, income tax, petrol tax, congestion tax etc...I'm moving to Zurich this summer. Most people I know in similar situations are either seriously contemplating leaving or are waiting for the movers. The UK's finances have deteriorated to the point where further tax increases are certain and the wealthy are particularly vulnerable politically. The concept of fairness is irrelevant in this discussion as it is not an objective measure and depends on who is making the argument. What is relevant is what will happen to the government's cumulative tax receipts from this segment of the population. They will inevitably fall as we will either leave the UK or arrange our affairs so that wealth outside of the UK is beyond the reach of the government.
John, London,
I was a non-dom in London for 17 years until I sold my business and moved back to Canada - a big mistake. My wife and I are currently deciding whether to move to the UK or to Switzerland and taxes are a key variable in my decision making. Now that the non-compete on my prior business has lapsed I will start a new company where I will employ 30 to 40 well paid management consultants. Large corporates and banks are our target market and they don't care where our office and Zurich offers an attractive lifestyle for myself and my family. Note to Colin, wealth creators care about taxes its an important variable.
Richard , West Vancouver, Canada
If you believe this you will believe anything. These people can come to the UK and avoid tax on unremitted income for 7 years. Where else are they going to go? Any other comparable centre will leave them in a worse position. To compare London with Dubai etc is absurd.
A classic example of crying wolf
Colin, Monreal, Canada