Rishi Sunak’s wife claims non-domicile status

[Whorty]

There's a guidance note here:
Guidance note for residence, domicile and the remittance basis: RDR1 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

In particular, it has a flowchart to determine where you're domiciled (see attachment). In this case, I'd say it's pretty straightforward:

Q1: What are your plans for the future?
A2: To remain in the UK

Q2: Settled long-term commitment or shorter term plan?
A2: Long term

Conclusion: You are domiciled in the UK

As I understand it, non-dom status would make sense when someone comes over for a few years (e.g. on a university degree). So, the closest analogy to contracting might be the 24 month rule for travel expenses. Sticking with that analogy, the key question is "do you expect to be in this location for more than 2 years?", i.e. you can't keep claiming for the first 1 year + 364 days then say "Wow, what a complete surprise, I'm still here at the 2 year mark". In Murthy's case, is she really expecting to leave the UK any time soon?

Presumably she's on the 'chart 3' route ... what does that map say?

I'm not defending her per-se, but it does seem she isn't breaking the law and the biggest issue people have with her is that she's married to Rishi. It's a shame in this day and age she can't be treated as an individual but instead is treated as 'his wife'.

But, and I'll say it again, everyone on his has made legal choices (and some illegal and followed dodgy schemes) to reduce the tax burden so I don't really think we're anyone to judge. Glass houses, and all that

[SueEllen]

Presumably she's on the 'chart 3' route ... what does that map say?

I'm not defending her per-se, but it does seem she isn't breaking the law and the biggest issue people have with her is that she's married to Rishi. It's a shame in this day and age she can't be treated as an individual but instead is treated as 'his wife'.

She is his wife. As they have children together and live together, while they may do separate tax returns, they are not only a household but a family according to the DWP and other parts of HMRC.

[hobnob]

Presumably she's on the 'chart 3' route ... what does that map say?

It's on the same page as the link I posted earlier, but I've attached a copy to this post.
NB The definition is "You were born abroad and have no firm plans, or only short term plans, to remain in the UK."
She was born abroad, no issue there. However, she's married to someone whose current career relies on him living in the UK, she has kids who go to school here, and she owns 3 houses here. Yes, it's theoretically possible that she could move back to India tomorrow, but I think that's very unlikely.

I'm not defending her per-se, but it does seem she isn't breaking the law and the biggest issue people have with her is that she's married to Rishi. It's a shame in this day and age she can't be treated as an individual but instead is treated as 'his wife'.

Yes and no. I think that's the main reason why people have heard of her, i.e. most of the news headlines (and the title of this thread) refer to "Rishi Sunak's wife" rather than "Akshata Murty". However, there's been similar controversy about other people (e.g. the Panama Papers) and companies (e.g. Amazon and Starbucks) who exploit loopholes to dodge tax.

There's also the issue that Sunak is (partly?) responsible for setting the rules on tax. It's reasonable to ask whether he's biased, i.e. making rules that benefit his wife while poor people can't afford to eat.

But, and I'll say it again, everyone on his has made legal choices (and some illegal and followed dodgy schemes) to reduce the tax burden so I don't really think we're anyone to judge. Glass houses, and all that

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree: I think there's some nuance here, rather than "all or nothing". For instance, if someone works through an umbrella and does salary sacrifice to max out their pension contributions, that's tax avoidance but it's totally legit, and actively encouraged by HMRC. On the other hand, if someone sets up 10 companies, nested 5 levels deep, based in different countries, and those companies are all selling stuff to each other so that it would take several hours to actually unravel the links, that seems dodgy.

[mattster]

I'm not defending her per-se, but it does seem she isn't breaking the law and the biggest issue people have with her is that she's married to Rishi. It's a shame in this day and age she can't be treated as an individual but instead is treated as 'his wife'.

Apart from the obvious point that it looks like she is right on the fringes (at best) of eligibility for this ridiculous non-dom status (and way outside the spirit of it), there is a very clear conflict of interest here for Rishi. Non-dom has been in the sights of various governments for a while - Osborne was going to nix it completely I believe (good idea - it is an absurd loophole that only benefits the very rich, with little benefit to the country that I can discern). So now we have a senior figure in govt who might very well be the one who makes the decision on whether to keep or modify this tax loophole, who also directly benefits from it to the tune of £4m a year. Maybe that fact doesn't affect his judgement at all, but then again maybe it does.

[AtW]

What a LOAD OF CRAP THIS IS

Anybody who got "permanent home elsewhere" would not be living fecking permanently at Number 11 - and how many years she lived in the UK most of the time?

This is way beyond defensible - what ****ing difference would it REALLY make to her paying close to 40% on dividends she receives on her shares?

[SueEllen]

What a LOAD OF CRAP THIS IS

Anybody who got "permanent home elsewhere" would not be living fecking permanently at Number 11 - and how many years she lived in the UK most of the time?

This is way beyond defensible - what ****ing difference would it REALLY make to her paying close to 40% on dividends she receives on her shares?

Ministers and even MPs jobs aren't permanent. Every political career ends in failure.

However if I was married to and lived with a British person whose job meant s/he was in charge of UK tax legislation then it would look very odd if I was using a loophole claiming I was a foreigner to pay no UK tax.

[mattster]

What a LOAD OF CRAP THIS IS

Anybody who got "permanent home elsewhere" would not be living fecking permanently at Number 11 - and how many years she lived in the UK most of the time?

This is way beyond defensible - what ****ing difference would it REALLY make to her paying close to 40% on dividends she receives on her shares?

That's the nub of it, and the likely reaction of most. Most people aren't too interested in the defence of "all the rules were followed" when those rules were designed as a loophole to benefit only the very wealthiest and were literally written by your husband and his mates.

[Whorty]

What a LOAD OF CRAP THIS IS

Anybody who got "permanent home elsewhere" would not be living fecking permanently at Number 11 - and how many years she lived in the UK most of the time?

This is way beyond defensible - what ****ing difference would it REALLY make to her paying close to 40% on dividends she receives on her shares?

But that's not the rule is it? The rule is about future intentions, and she states that she has no future intention to stay permanently in the UK but plans to go back to India. Also, No 11 is no one's permanent address as ultimately all residents there are forced to move out.

We may not think that the position is morally defensible, but it is legally defensible in the same way that contractors have been defending against IR35 for the past 20 odd years.. And whatever her marital situation, she has every right to work within the boundaries of OUR legislation.

If people don't like this they should vote for the party that will remove this loophole.

Also remember, this is not UK income. It's not from a UK company. It's not a company a UK person set up. This is very much an Indian company and she is a non-dom Indian lady.

Suck it up guys, let the green eyed monster go

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a Rishi fan, or a Tory ... nope, wrong.

[mattster]

But that's not the rule is it? The rule is about future intentions, and she states that she has no future intention to stay permanently in the UK but plans to go back to India. Also, No 11 is no one's permanent address as ultimately all residents there are forced to move out.

Legally, of course, this isn't going anywhere despite that fairly obvious fact that the spirit of this already highly dubious loophole is being abused. What matters is public opinion and I don't see that going well. It also seems unlikely that she is even paying tax on these divs in India, given the very specific wording in answers to questions on that topic - most likely scenario, this money is all going through a tax haven somewhere with little to no tax paid at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rishi leaves politics altogether once he realises he is not going to be PM. It seems to be all about the power/kudos for him, not getting many public service vibes - similar to BJ.

[Whorty]

Legally, of course, this isn't going anywhere despite that fairly obvious fact that the spirit of this already highly dubious loophole is being abused.

I'm not arguing that the morality of it is arguable, but the legislation is there to be worked with, and that's what she's doing, as is her right. But then, there are plenty British people who do the same, and that is far more dubious - most pop stars and sports stars use this little loophole and I don't see them being dragged through the tabloids.

What matters is public opinion and I don't see that going well.

True, but the public will still vote Tory as they are idiots and can't seem to grasp that the Tories have the power to remove this loophole but choose not to.

It also seems unlikely that she is even paying tax on these divs in India, given the very specific wording in answers to questions on that topic - most likely scenario, this money is all going through a tax haven somewhere with little to no tax paid at all.

Speculation.

And this is about UK tax and her UK position and her spokesperson has been clear that she is paying correct UK tax on UK income. Is it any of our business whether she pays Indian tax?

I wouldn't be surprised if Rishi leaves politics altogether once he realises he is not going to be PM. It seems to be all about the power/kudos for him, not getting many public service vibes - similar to BJ.

Possibly, but given how much money is in his family (via his wife) he clearly isn't in politics for the cash. But then you can say that for most Tory MPs in top positions (is JRM really an MP for the money?)

But shouldn't we be separating the 2 people out here? Or are we lumping her with him as society still sees the bloke as the head of the house and the little woman should do as her husband says? We don't know that he hasn't asked her to pay UK tax, and she may well have told him to go do-one as it's her business how she runs her affairs. I know if I'd try to tell my wife how to run her financial affairs I'd be at least one testicle less now, and my good looks may have taken a bit of a kicking