Connect with us

News

Wealthy foreigners step up plans to leave UK as taxes increase

Published

on

Wealthy foreigners step up plans to leave UK as taxes increase

Increasing numbers of wealthy foreigners say they are leaving the UK in response to the abolition of the “non-dom” regime that allowed them to avoid paying tax on overseas income. 

The change — backed by both the Conservative and Labour parties — has contributed to a relative decline in the UK’s attractiveness, according to over a dozen interviews with wealthy foreigners and their advisers. Other deterrents cited include Brexit, fiscal and political instability, and concerns around security. 

“Brexit happened and the Conservatives promised to make the UK like Singapore and instead they turned this place into Belarus,” said a billionaire businessman who has lived in London for 15 years and is now moving his tax residency to Abu Dhabi. “Security is now a major issue and another contributing factor to the tax reasons for why people are wanting to leave.”

In March chancellor Jeremy Hunt stole one of the opposition Labour party’s flagship fiscal policies when he announced the abolition of the non-dom regime. 

Labour shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves followed with proposals to toughen the planned crackdown, notably reversing a Tory decision to permit non-doms who will lose benefits from next April to shield foreign assets held in an offshore trust from inheritance tax permanently. 

Advertisement

Polls have put Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party on track for victory in the general election on July 4. 

“The UK’s inheritance tax of 40 per cent on your global assets is a real problem,” said a European non-dom businessman in his 50s, who is moving his family from London to Switzerland after more than a decade in the UK. “It’s the overall instability that has been the nail in the coffin for me. If there was a more balanced, less punitive inheritance tax I might have considered staying.” 

While Starmer has sought to position Labour as the “party of wealth creation”, the non-dom changes mark one of several potential tax increases under a Labour government. 

While Labour has committed not to raise income tax, national insurance, corporation tax or VAT, the party insists it has “no plans” to raise capital gains tax or inheritance tax or levy any form of wealth tax, but refuses to rule them out. Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, told the Financial Times this week: “We’re not seeking a mandate to increase people’s taxes.”

A party official said “nobody has seen” a supposed Labour memo, reported by the Guardian, which outlined that the party was mulling plans to increase the rate of CGT in line with income tax and cap business and agricultural land inheritance tax relief. Labour officials said the report appeared to be based on research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Tax Policy Associates.

Advertisement

Trevor Abrahmsohn, director of Glentree Properties, a London estate agent, said there had been a steady decline in inquiries for £10mn properties, which he attributed to “higher interest rates and anticipated changes to the non-dom regime”. He added: “As more high-end property comes on to the market, I expect there to be fewer buyers and for prices to fall.” 

Indian vaccine billionaire Adar Poonawalla last month told the FT that the non-dom change had harmed the UK. “Some people are willing to pay that cost like I am, but most others aren’t,” said Poonawalla, head of the Serum Institute of India. “They can easily move out.”

There were 68,800 individuals claiming non-dom status on their tax returns in 2022, according to the most recent estimates from HM Revenue & Customs, the UK tax agency, but a lag in the data makes it impossible to gauge recent moves.

“There is no hard and fast data on non-dom departures but there’s a real buzz at the moment around people both considering leaving and actually going,” said Fiona Fernie, a partner at tax and accounting firm Blick Rothenberg. “There’s been a definite marker put down by both parties that non-doms are targets and whatever benefits perceived to be given to them is going to be significantly reduced. This is a catalyst for departures.”

One French investor in his 40s said that “any foreigner in the UK who has the option to leave is doing so because of the end of the non-dom regime”. He is moving from London to Milan early next year, lured by a system that was announced by Italy in 2017 that exempts foreign income from Italian tax in exchange for the payment of €100,000 a year. Returning to France was “out of the question”, he added, given the current political situation. 

Advertisement

A crackdown on the non-dom regime began eight years ago under then Conservative chancellor George Osborne. He tightened the regime so that from April 2017 foreign residents who had lived in Britain for more than 15 of the past 20 years were deemed domiciled in the UK.

Since then other European jurisdictions — including France, Italy and Portugal — have gone in the opposite direction, launching comparable non-dom or impatriation regimes to attract wealthy families, increasing competition with traditional havens such as Monaco and Switzerland.

Italy, Switzerland, Malta and the Middle East are currently the most popular destinations for those leaving the UK, according to advisers.

While non-doms do not pay tax on their offshore earnings, they are taxed on their UK income. Proponents of the regime argue that non-doms bring skills, jobs and investment to Britain.

The American School in London is concerned about future enrolment as a result of the non-dom abolition, according to two people familiar with the situation. The American School declined to comment.

Advertisement

A French businessman in his 50s who is resident in Switzerland said he had started the process of moving part of his business to the UK but backtracked after the government announced it would abolish the non-dom regime. 

“The Conservatives have sent a very strong signal that they don’t want foreigners here any more and Labour won’t do anything to change that. I’m 100 per cent sure I’m not going to come back.” 

He added: “Was the non-dom regime a fair system? No it wasn’t. Was it efficient? Yes it was.” 

Fears of a tougher tax regime are also causing some UK nationals to look at leaving the country. Henley & Partners, which advises on residence and citizenship, said it had received a three-fold increase in inquiries from UK nationals between 2022 and 2023 and a 25 per cent year-on-year increase in the first half of this year.

“A lot of the inquiries we’re getting at the moment in the London office are based on the fact that Labour will come in and what might happen on the back of that,” says Dominic Volek, group head of private clients at Henley & Partners.

Advertisement

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending