header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Tax , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Taxing Matters

DOMICILE REVIEW

Also recently published is the draft legislation to the remittance basis and the £30,000 charge on foreign domiciled individuals who are resident in the UK and wish to take advantage of the remittance basis. This is not a tax but an independent charge and will not be creditable against any tax due on foreign income or gains remitted to the UK.

This is partly just a matter of calculation (is the £30,000 more or less than the tax you would otherwise pay?) but it is also a matter of profile. There will be some people who will be reluctant to expose their worldwide income and gains to HMRC as they fear being targeted for special attention by reason of their wealth.

Others, perhaps being brought up in countries where the integrity and professionalism of the tax authorities is less fully developed, will be reluctant to reveal the extent of their assets to the UK tax authorities on grounds of security. Their anxiety will be increased by the requirement to provide HMRC with details of all offshore trusts (even existing trusts) within 12 months. They will pay the £30,000 simply to avoid putting themselves at risk.

Others view this as the harbinger of further oppressive legislation and are planning to go—and there seems to be a startling number of people for whom leaving the UK has become the preferred option.

 

Transparency

The changes to the remittance basis are profound and serious issues arise about the retrospective nature of some of the new rules. The change in the definition of remittance, the elimination of the source doctrine and the effect on remittances by third parties are bad enough, but what about income and gains arising in the current year which is remitted next year? The general idea for offshore companies and trusts is to eliminate the present exemption which applies to foreign domiciled settlors and shareholders to whom gains would otherwise have been attributed and to introduce a kind of transparency. If the offshore trust makes a gain on a foreign asset, it is subject to the remittance basis (rather like it would have been if the asset had been owned by the settlor personally) but if the asset is in the UK, there is no remittance basis—the gain is fully chargeable. No wonder HMRC needs full details of all existing trusts because otherwise it will have no means of identifying such chargeable gains.

Some of the proposals are so draconian that they will be simply impossible. Where the trust gains cannot be attributable to the settlor, the accumulated capital gains are taxed on the beneficiaries to the extent that they receive capital payments or benefits.

A foreign domiciled beneficiary will no longer be protected. So foreign trustees of a foreign resident trust with a foreign settlor and foreign assets make a distribution outside the UK to a foreign domiciled beneficiary. If that beneficiary is resident in the UK (and how do the trustees know that?) a charge arises and the trustees must provide a whole lot of information which does not exist because they have never had cause to keep it. This is so onerous that some people are confidently predicting a degree of relaxation—but I wouldn’t be too sure.

Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Tax , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll