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

US oil refiners gear up for comeback of Venezuelan crude

Published

on

US oil refiners gear up for comeback of Venezuelan crude

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

US refiners are braced for a surge in Venezuelan crude that would make them early winners of President Donald Trump’s extraordinary plans for an energy-led regime change in Caracas.

Shares in America’s top refining groups jumped on Monday as traders bet their US Gulf Coast operations could snap up big volumes of Venezuelan heavy crude as Washington looks to ease sanctions and revive production.

Valero, the biggest US importer of Venezuelan crude, closed 9 per cent higher. Phillips 66 added 7 per cent and Marathon Petroleum 6 per cent. 

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

“Our refineries in the Gulf Coast of the United States are the best in terms of refining the heavy crude,” said US secretary of state Marco Rubio on Sunday. “I think there will be tremendous demand and interest from private industry if given the space to do it.”

Trump this weekend touted the “tremendous amount of wealth” that could be generated by American oil companies returning to Venezuela’s oil sector after US forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to the US to face trial on drug-trafficking charges. 

That has sparked a burst of interest among energy investors keen to return to Venezuela — home to the biggest oil reserves in the world — decades after expropriations by Caracas led most to abandon the country. 

A flurry of executives was expected to arrive in Miami on Tuesday, where US energy secretary Chris Wright will pitch the benefits of channelling billions of dollars into reviving Venezuelan oil output, which has fallen from 3.7mn barrels a day in 1970 to less than 1mn b/d today as a result of chronic mismanagement, corruption and sanctions. 

Advertisement

While any investment by US companies in rejuvenating Venezuelan oil production could take time, Gulf Coast refiners are well positioned to hoover up crude shipments as soon as sanctions are eased and more import permits are granted, something analysts say could happen quickly. 

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

“Near-term, Gulf Coast refiners could be among the biggest winners of shifts that could occur here,” said Dylan White, principal analyst for North American crude markets at consultancy Wood Mackenzie. 

“The investment side of the coin in Venezuela is much more slow moving. It’s turning a very slow ship and it involves high-level decisions from a number of companies,” he said. “[But] sanctions policy changing in the US could change the economic benefits for US Gulf Coast refiners tomorrow.”

American refiners and traders import about 100,000-200,000 b/d of Venezuelan crude, down from 1.4mn b/d in 1997. Under current US sanctions, Chevron is the only American producer allowed to operate in the country and imports of Venezuelan crude are heavily restricted.

As much as 80 per cent of Venezuelan exports had been bound for China before the US imposed a naval embargo last month. Much of that could be quickly rerouted to the US if sanctions were lifted.

Advertisement

“The natural proximal home for a lot of those Venezuelan heavy barrels would be the refining complex of the US Gulf Coast,” said Clayton Seigle, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adding that the fact that the facilities were equipped to process Venezuelan heavy oil could explain “some of the short-term stock market reactions that we observed”.

Valero, Philips 66 and Marathon did not respond to requests for comment on their plans.

US refineries were largely set up before the shale revolution made America the world’s biggest oil producer. Almost 70 per cent of US refining capacity is designed primarily to handle the heavy grades common in Venezuela, Canada and Mexico rather than the light, sweet variety found in Texas oilfields, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

Consultancy S&P Global Energy estimates that from 1990 to 2010, US refiners spent about $100bn on heavy crude processing capabilities, just before the fracking boom sent American production soaring.

“This finally gets some of the [return on investment] back,” said Debnil Chowdhury, Americas head of refining and marketing at S&P, of the potential for a return to significant imports of Venezuelan heavy oil.

Advertisement

“We had a system that was kind of running de-optimised for the last 10-15 years. And this allows it to get a little bit closer to what it was designed for — which means slightly higher yields, higher margins.

“You get to basically use your asset more how it was designed because you’re getting the feedstock it was designed for.”

Data visualisation by Eva Xiao in New York

Continue Reading

News

Maduro seized, norms tested: Security Council divided as Venezuela crisis deepens

Published

on

Maduro seized, norms tested: Security Council divided as Venezuela crisis deepens

Why it matters: Council members are split over whether Washington’s move upholds accountability – or undermines a foundational principle of international order.  

Some delegations argue the action was exceptional and justified; others warn it risks normalising unilateral force and eroding state sovereignty.

Setting the tone, the UN Secretary-General cautioned that international peace and security rest on all Member States adhering to the UN Charter – language that framed a debate likely to expose deep and lasting divisions inside the chamber in New York – all as the Venezuelan leader appeared in a downtown federal courtroom just a few miles away.

US Ambassador Michael Waltz addresses the Security Council.

US: Law-enforcement operation, not war

The United States rejected characterisations of its actions as military aggression, describing the operation as a targeted law enforcement measure facilitated by the military to arrest an indicted fugitive.

Advertisement

Ambassador Michael Waltz said:

  • Nicolás Maduro is not a legitimate head of State following disputed 2024 elections.
  • Saturday’s operation was necessary to combat narcotics trafficking and transnational organised crime threatening US and regional security.
  • Historical precedents exist, including the 1989 arrest of Panama’s former leader Manuel Noriega.

“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” he said. “This was a law-enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades.”

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada addresses the Security Council meeting.

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada addresses the Security Council.

Venezuela: Sovereignty violated; a dangerous precedent

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada described his country as the target of an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification, accusing the US of bombing Venezuelan territory, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

“We cannot ignore a central element of this US aggression,” he said. “Venezuela is the victim of these attacks because of its natural resources.”

Calling on the Council to act under its Charter mandate, he urged that:

  • The US be required to respect the immunities of the president and his wife and ensure their immediate release and safe return;
  • The use of force against Venezuela be clearly and unequivocally condemned;
  • The principle of non-acquisition of territory or resources by force be reaffirmed; and
  • Measures be adopted to de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and restore respect for international law.

Article 2 of the UN Charter in a nutshell

The ground rules for global cooperation 

Article 2 lays out the core principles that guide how countries work together under the United Nations. Here’s what it means:

Advertisement
  • Equality for all nations: Every Member State, big or small, is treated as an equal.
  • Keep your promises: Countries must honour the commitments they made when joining the UN.
  • Peaceful problem-solving: Disputes should be settled without violence, to protect peace and justice.
  • No force or threats: Nations must not use force or threaten others’ independence or territory.
  • Support the UN’s actions: Members should help the UN when it acts to maintain peace—and never assist those opposing it.
  • Influence beyond membership: Even non-member States should follow these principles when peace and security are at stake.
  • Hands off domestic affairs: The UN cannot interfere in a country’s internal matters – except when enforcing peace under Chapter VII, which deals with actions to preserve international peace and security.

Read more about the UN Charter here.

Concern over use of force

Several Council members and others invited to take part expressed deep concern over the US military action, grounding their positions firmly in the UN Charter.

Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Panama, underscored their region’s long-standing declaration as a zone of peace and warned that unilateral military action risked destabilising the Western hemisphere and aggravating displacement flows.

  • Colombia, in its first intervention as an elected Council member, rejected “any unilateral use of force” and cautioned that civilians invariably pay the highest price.
  • Brazil said the bombing and seizure of a head of State crossed an “unacceptable line,” warning of the erosion of multilateralism.
  • Mexico stressed that externally imposed regime change violates international law regardless of political disagreements.

Ambassadors also cited a worrying human rights situation inside Venezuela and the suffering of civilians, highlighting the need to ensure compliance with international law:

  • The United Kingdom highlighted years of suffering endured by Venezuelans – poverty, repression and mass displacement – while underscoring that respect for the UN Charter and the rule of law is essential for global peace and security.
  • Denmark and France acknowledged the imperative to combat organised crime and protect human rights – but warned that counter-narcotics efforts and accountability must be pursued through lawful, multilateral means.
A wide view of the United Nations Security Council meeting discussing threats to international peace and security, specifically regarding the situation in Venezuela.

A wide view of the Security Council meeting on the situation in Venezuela.

Regional voices backing US action

A smaller group of countries from the region took a different view.

  • Argentina praised the US operation as a decisive step against narcotics trafficking and terrorism, arguing that the operation and Mr. Maduro’s removal could open a path toward restoring democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.
  • Paraguay also welcomed Mr. Maduro’s removal, calling for the immediate restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging that the transition proceed through democratic means.

Charter credibility at stake

Russia and China delivered some of the strongest criticism, characterising the US action as armed aggression and warning against the normalisation of unilateral force.

This position was echoed by countries beyond the Americas – including South Africa, Pakistan, Iran and Uganda – which warned the selective application of international law risks undermining the entire collective security system.

Representatives of Moscow and Beijing called for the immediate release of President Maduro and stressed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity under international law, framing the situation as a test of whether Charter principles apply equally to all States.

Advertisement
Broadcast of the Security Council meeting regarding the situation in Venezuela.
Continue Reading

News

Video: Welcome to Rennie Harris’s Dance Floor

Published

on

Video: Welcome to Rennie Harris’s Dance Floor

new video loaded: Welcome to Rennie Harris’s Dance Floor

The acclaimed hip-hop choreographer Rennie Harris’s production “American Street Dancer” brought Detroit Jit, Chicago Footwork and Philly GQ to the stage. We invited cast members to showcase the three street dance styles.

By Chevaz Clarke and Vincent Tullo

January 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending