Tory leader

Javid?

Didn't find your answer?

How on earth did HMRC allow him to be a non dom? His family came to UK with nothing snd worked hard to make a success of his life and career but i do not understand how he managed to obtain ND status. How much did he earn abroad and if not remitted where are his earnings stashed? N

Replies (80)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Replying to Tornado:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jul 2022 14:52

I guess you know when he is lying to you - every time he opens his mouth.

Rishi is way too slick.

Thanks (0)
Routemaster image
By tom123
12th Jul 2022 16:01

In my defence, I joined the party last time to vote for the "anyone but Boris / Gove" candidate.

Fat lot of good that did.

Thanks (0)
Replying to tom123:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jul 2022 17:10

@Tom, your honour is restored. Just looked any its only £25.

Is it too late to join now and vote on which one of the final two is the least worst.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
13th Jul 2022 09:27

IMHO you should vote for the worst candidate to make the Conservatives more unelectable.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
12th Jul 2022 19:27

He who wields the sword never wears the crown

Thanks (1)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
12th Jul 2022 20:08

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
12th Jul 2022 22:00

Especially if it has just encountered the person wielding the sword.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Hugo Fair
13th Jul 2022 10:31

Oh the dangers of pontificating on matters political ... the shelf-life of comments is as short-lived as are the political lives.

I see Sajid Javid failed to get enough supporters to 'make the initial card' - so is not in the running!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
13th Jul 2022 10:54

But where will his votes go, that is the question.

At this stage they do not always go to who they now actually support but instead they may shift in the interim to A N Other to help dislodge those they dislike/fear, by voting , pro tem, to keep others in the competition and exclude the long term dangerous opponents.

It is certainly a process akin to chess trying to see three, four moves ahead- if all politics was scheming I would gladly have become a politician.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
13th Jul 2022 11:28

All good points ... but he couldn't even dredge up 8 votes (actual number unknown), so their dispersal isn't likely to have a major impact - especially since they're not moving en masse.

Oh, and whilst for most politicians seeing "three, four moves ahead" would make them unusually astute ... in chess you'll need to need to try harder most of the time!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
13th Jul 2022 13:01

I know in chess one ought to see further but three/four moves was always my limit and these days I doubt I could play in my head more than two or three moves. (have barely played chess now in over 30 years)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JustAnotherUser
13th Jul 2022 15:32

notice how the bad press for this guy came out a few months before his PM run, get the dirt out in the open so it doesnt sour his run to the top.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
14th Jul 2022 14:09

Tom Tugendhat has lost it
Wanting more defence spending? Good
Blaming beancounters and spreadsheets? Bad

Thanks (0)
Donald MacKenzie
By Donald MacKenzie
15th Jul 2022 09:21

I do not think it appropriate that Javid adopted non-dom status when he made serious money. By that stage he had lived here and been educated here. I doubt if he ever expected to leave here, but a quirk of tax law allowed him to claim non-dom through his father.
Shame on him, and the tax specialist who, no doubt, dreamt up the idea.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Donald MacKenzie:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
15th Jul 2022 10:56

Warning: like you I am commenting from a position of ignorance of the facts and based on hearsay and headlines.

It's worth noting that he worked outside the UK, and the earnings that comprised a large part of the serious money he made would anyway never be taxable in the UK (and - correctly - irrespective of domicile - have not been taxed in the UK).

There was presumably some tax loss from his use of a trust (coupled with the non-dom claims), but this was credibly more than made good when he wound the trust up with a 50% tax hit.

To me he seems to have a dollop of integrity about him. (I'll leave it to someone else to say that's probably why he got eliminated from the leadership contest so quickly.)

Thanks (0)
By Charlie Carne
15th Jul 2022 10:11

You ask how HMRC could "allow him to be a non dom". His domicile of origin was clearly not in the UK, so it would only change if his father acquired a UK domicile while Saj was a dependant or if Saj acquired a domicile of choice. Given that it can be very hard for a UK dom to prove that they have a new dom of choice elsewhere, it seems clear that it would be equally hard for HMRC to prove that a UK non-dom had acquired a UK dom of choice (perhaps just maintaining a home and burial plot abroad would suffice to prevent that argument from HMRC).

However, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 s41 belatedly made provision that:
if a person is for any part of a tax year—
(a)a member of the House of Commons, or
(b)a member of the House of Lords.
(2)The person is to be treated for the purposes of the taxes listed in subsection (3) as resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for the whole of that tax year.

Thanks (1)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By carnmores
15th Jul 2022 12:17

Why not? He was born in Rochdale and was brought up here. His domicile of origin should be UK

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Dib
15th Jul 2022 13:38

No, it should be Rochdale -wrong side of t'pennines!

Thanks (1)
Replying to charliecarne:
avatar
By carnmores
18th Jul 2022 12:10

The Baron of Belize stipulation. God save us from Lord Ashcroft.
Inheriting your dom from your father when you are born in this country is bonkers and clearly wrong

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
RLI
By lionofludesch
18th Jul 2022 13:26

carnmores wrote:

The Baron of Belize stipulation. God save us from Lord Ashcroft.
Inheriting your dom from your father when you are born in this country is bonkers and clearly wrong

Would you be happy that a child born to British military stationed in Germany would have German domicile ?

This stuff works both ways.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By carnmores
18th Jul 2022 14:20

Of course it works 2 ways but highly unusually i disagree with you this time. Active service abroad should not affect ones dom in any way and how many rich service men are there, and why only thru the father and not the mother , sexist anachronistic nonsense

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Jul 2022 14:40

carnmores wrote:

why only thru the father and not the mother

Because they were married at the time (if I remember my training correctly).

You can have only one domicile, so cannot take both parents' if theirs differ. An issue of modern times only - go back far enough and a woman could not have a domicile independent of a man.

Domicile can determine what happens to your estate on death. (And I don't mean the tax.) It's non-trivial to overhaul the law in this area, however ridiculous the current rules may seem. (Tax is a separate discussion - whether 15 years is long enough/too long/about right being one obvious question.)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By carnmores
18th Jul 2022 14:56

I well remember joint taxation and WEE. Can you remind me what happened where parental couple were not married. Im lying in the shade

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Jul 2022 15:04

Whether any of this has changed/is changing (to match being able to have two fathers on a birth certificate, say) I don't know. But your first domicile follows your father if your parents are married and your mother if they're not. As I recall. From training. But a search engine will probably help you more than I will.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
18th Jul 2022 16:39

From those 'innocent' days when an unmarried mother & father was taken to mean that you could only be sure of the mother being a parent ... unlike, of course, where they happened to be married!

Whereas current DNA testing is proving that, in quite a lot of cases, the 'father' took no part in any biological process leading to conception.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By carnmores
18th Jul 2022 16:47

The father took no part... In most cases overwhelmingly its the other way round. And the failure of fathers to pay child support needs to be toughened up

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
18th Jul 2022 20:34

As usual, you seem determined to take umbrage at a point that I've not even made.

There have been several large scale studies over the last 20 years (as the volume of genetic testing data grows like topsy) - all of which have discovered a surprising number of families with more than one child but the same two 'parents' ... where it turns out that at least one of the children does not have 'dad' as their biological father. The figures vary in different studies but rarely drop below 5%!

So my comment was a light-hearted pointer that the law was always wrong to assume it knew who the father was IF the parents were married!
Nothing whatsoever to do with your concern regarding feckless males.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By carnmores
18th Jul 2022 21:53

I dont take umbrage with this or any other points you made. 5% is hardly earth shattering. I enjoy your comments very much even when you are occasionally intolerant. The point is that the women may have slept with someone who is not her husband who in turn may have cheated on his wife. Takes two to tango as it were.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
18th Jul 2022 22:50

I don' think that doing the tango was the cause of any problem (unless it's a P Eye style euphemism). :=)

But I must be more naïve than I realised. You say "5% is hardly earth shattering", but if you take 10 families in your street who happen to have 2 children each then (on average) that stat means one is a 'cuckoo'.
In fact I picked the lowest ratio from all those studies as it seemed the least contentious... rates amongst a group of fathers who had requested DNA tests were in excess of 1 in 3 (but that feels like an unduly biased sample)!

Anyway, as I said, I wasn't raising any aspect of morality in all this - just pointing out the inanity that resulted when old laws were made by straight-laced and unimaginative people (even if they had the best of intentions).
I can still the look of shock on my Mum's face when she told me (in front of my girlfriend) "Of course Jenny can't go up to your room at night time" ... only to hear this free-spirited young girl intervene with "It's OK if you're worried about sex - he's usually too shagged out by the evening"!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By carnmores
19th Jul 2022 07:59

Happy days. Im an old fart don't worry too much about my meanderings a lively discussion is good. Nick

Thanks (1)

Pages