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

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending