best tax haven to avoid cgt without living there?
Discussion
Steffan said:
I think we must distinguish between avoidance and evasion.
In a recent case the Revenue went for a very wealthy titled individual who owned an island in the Caribbean and claimed non Domicility in the UK.
HE CLAIMED HE LIVED ON THE ISLAND AND DID OWN HOUSES THERE.
The revenue admitted he had NOT spent more than 92 days ( three months ) in England in any tax year over last thirty years.
But they claimed his family was based here and his lifestyle was based here and he was actually domiciled here. HE ALSO OWNED A NUMBER OF MASSIVE PROPERTIES IN THE UK. His family are here and the Revenue obviously convinced the Court.
Because THEY WON.
I was staggered at this but the fact is they did win.
He now has a back duty case over the last 30 years.
I cannot find the case reference currently.
I am in California and then Italy but I will find it on return to the UK and post it up.
Fact is the greatest part of OFFSHORE dealings are simply not declared to the Revenue.
In just the same way as driving in a 40 limit will not get you booked for speeding most of the time so non declaration of offshore income is generally undiscovered.
BUT THIS IS NOT LEGAL NOT LAWFUL FULL OF DIFFICULTIES AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.
If you have a family in the UK history in the UK and business in the UK it is extremely difficult to claim Non Domicility.
Yes. Richard Branson and Mick Jagger and Rupert Murdoch may be able to but ask yourselves this. What is it costing them and how long has it taken them?
Is it a practical proposition for the average taxpayer.
NO NO and thrice NO!
He "lived" in the Seychelles.In a recent case the Revenue went for a very wealthy titled individual who owned an island in the Caribbean and claimed non Domicility in the UK.
HE CLAIMED HE LIVED ON THE ISLAND AND DID OWN HOUSES THERE.
The revenue admitted he had NOT spent more than 92 days ( three months ) in England in any tax year over last thirty years.
But they claimed his family was based here and his lifestyle was based here and he was actually domiciled here. HE ALSO OWNED A NUMBER OF MASSIVE PROPERTIES IN THE UK. His family are here and the Revenue obviously convinced the Court.
Because THEY WON.
I was staggered at this but the fact is they did win.
He now has a back duty case over the last 30 years.
I cannot find the case reference currently.
I am in California and then Italy but I will find it on return to the UK and post it up.
Fact is the greatest part of OFFSHORE dealings are simply not declared to the Revenue.
In just the same way as driving in a 40 limit will not get you booked for speeding most of the time so non declaration of offshore income is generally undiscovered.
BUT THIS IS NOT LEGAL NOT LAWFUL FULL OF DIFFICULTIES AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.
If you have a family in the UK history in the UK and business in the UK it is extremely difficult to claim Non Domicility.
Yes. Richard Branson and Mick Jagger and Rupert Murdoch may be able to but ask yourselves this. What is it costing them and how long has it taken them?
Is it a practical proposition for the average taxpayer.
NO NO and thrice NO!
Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
marky1 said:
Steffan said:
I think we must distinguish between avoidance and evasion.
In a recent case the Revenue went for a very wealthy titled individual who owned an island in the Caribbean and claimed non Domicility in the UK.
HE CLAIMED HE LIVED ON THE ISLAND AND DID OWN HOUSES THERE.
The revenue admitted he had NOT spent more than 92 days ( three months ) in England in any tax year over last thirty years.
But they claimed his family was based here and his lifestyle was based here and he was actually domiciled here. HE ALSO OWNED A NUMBER OF MASSIVE PROPERTIES IN THE UK. His family are here and the Revenue obviously convinced the Court.
Because THEY WON.
I was staggered at this but the fact is they did win.
He now has a back duty case over the last 30 years.
I cannot find the case reference currently.
I am in California and then Italy but I will find it on return to the UK and post it up.
Fact is the greatest part of OFFSHORE dealings are simply not declared to the Revenue.
In just the same way as driving in a 40 limit will not get you booked for speeding most of the time so non declaration of offshore income is generally undiscovered.
BUT THIS IS NOT LEGAL NOT LAWFUL FULL OF DIFFICULTIES AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.
If you have a family in the UK history in the UK and business in the UK it is extremely difficult to claim Non Domicility.
Yes. Richard Branson and Mick Jagger and Rupert Murdoch may be able to but ask yourselves this. What is it costing them and how long has it taken them?
Is it a practical proposition for the average taxpayer.
NO NO and thrice NO!
He "lived" in the Seychelles.In a recent case the Revenue went for a very wealthy titled individual who owned an island in the Caribbean and claimed non Domicility in the UK.
HE CLAIMED HE LIVED ON THE ISLAND AND DID OWN HOUSES THERE.
The revenue admitted he had NOT spent more than 92 days ( three months ) in England in any tax year over last thirty years.
But they claimed his family was based here and his lifestyle was based here and he was actually domiciled here. HE ALSO OWNED A NUMBER OF MASSIVE PROPERTIES IN THE UK. His family are here and the Revenue obviously convinced the Court.
Because THEY WON.
I was staggered at this but the fact is they did win.
He now has a back duty case over the last 30 years.
I cannot find the case reference currently.
I am in California and then Italy but I will find it on return to the UK and post it up.
Fact is the greatest part of OFFSHORE dealings are simply not declared to the Revenue.
In just the same way as driving in a 40 limit will not get you booked for speeding most of the time so non declaration of offshore income is generally undiscovered.
BUT THIS IS NOT LEGAL NOT LAWFUL FULL OF DIFFICULTIES AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.
If you have a family in the UK history in the UK and business in the UK it is extremely difficult to claim Non Domicility.
Yes. Richard Branson and Mick Jagger and Rupert Murdoch may be able to but ask yourselves this. What is it costing them and how long has it taken them?
Is it a practical proposition for the average taxpayer.
NO NO and thrice NO!
Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
The Revenue managed to prove that he had not severed his ties to the UK and in fact still had overwhelming ties and thus owed tax on his income and gains over the period.
marky1 said:
He "lived" in the Seychelles.
Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
Thank you for saving me a job. Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
This is a landmark case in my view.
What I find interesting is that he PERSONALLY has never been in the UK for more than the required limit of 93 days a year. For a very long time certainly decades.
So you can now be liable for UK tax even though you are admitted by the Revenue to never have been here in any tax year for more than 93 days.
It demonstrates the lengths to which the Revenue are pushing this.
Yes his children went to school here and his wife occupies homes but he surely met the requirements of non Domicility. He is NOT his wife or children.
Or he is as this case proves.
I suggest the Avoiders (???_) on this forum read this carefully.
Few people will pass this test which is of course precisely why its a landmark case and needs looking at in detail.
I actually agree that the Revenue had a point, They won the case.
Legal offshore tax avoidance is extremely difficult. EXTREMELY DIFFICULT!
Steffan said:
marky1 said:
He "lived" in the Seychelles.
Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
Thank you for saving me a job. Name is Robert Gaines-Cooper.
The ruling was based around the fact he had not made a permanent and distinct break of ties to the UK.
His will was drawn up in the UK.
If I remember correctly his wife continued to live in one of the UK properties while the children went to a local school.
Several other issues I am sure but the conclusion was that "England remained the centre of gravity of his life and interests."
Personally I think the Court is right. You either leave or you don't, seems to me like he wanted the best of both worlds.
This is a landmark case in my view.
What I find interesting is that he PERSONALLY has never been in the UK for more than the required limit of 93 days a year. For a very long time certainly decades.
So you can now be liable for UK tax even though you are admitted by the Revenue to never have been here in any tax year for more than 93 days.
It demonstrates the lengths to which the Revenue are pushing this.
Yes his children went to school here and his wife occupies homes but he surely met the requirements of non Domicility. He is NOT his wife or children.
Or he is as this case proves.
I suggest the Avoiders (???_) on this forum read this carefully.
Few people will pass this test which is of course precisely why its a landmark case and needs looking at in detail.
I actually agree that the Revenue had a point, They won the case.
Legal offshore tax avoidance is extremely difficult. EXTREMELY DIFFICULT!
Sending your kids to a British school is not enough to clobber you but it will form part of an overall picture which may.
Keeping cars in storage is another little problem.
Basically, if you are going to f
k off then fk off properly. 
And that is something which is very hard to do for us Brits because once you have the money this is one of the key countries on the planet.DonkeyApple said:
It has always been the case that you had to be able to prove that you have severed all your ties. The usual things are to exit all memberships in the UK, sell all property and assets and to take your family with you.
Sending your kids to a British school is not enough to clobber you but it will form part of an overall picture which may.
Keeping cars in storage is another little problem.
Basically, if you are going to fk off then fk off properly. And that is something which is very hard to do for us Brits because once you have the money this is one of the key countries on the planet.
A friend of mine did this about 5 years ago.Sending your kids to a British school is not enough to clobber you but it will form part of an overall picture which may.
Keeping cars in storage is another little problem.
Basically, if you are going to f
k off then fk off properly. And that is something which is very hard to do for us Brits because once you have the money this is one of the key countries on the planet.Went to the US.
BUT he went briefly to Ireland first. I asked him why and he would not give me a straight answer.
Any ideas as to the importance of the Ireland connection?
Manks said:
A friend of mine did this about 5 years ago.
Went to the US.
BUT he went briefly to Ireland first. I asked him why and he would not give me a straight answer.
Any ideas as to the importance of the Ireland connection?
No idea, I'm afraid. Was he working for NorAID? Went to the US.
BUT he went briefly to Ireland first. I asked him why and he would not give me a straight answer.
Any ideas as to the importance of the Ireland connection?
I could only possibly summise that the US has a different taxation treaty with Ireland than it has with the UK? That's a bit fo a stab in the dark though.
The problem with becoming a US citizen is that you are taxed on worldwide income, regardless. You are also likely to get shot in more countries than someone with a British passport, although that is probably more marginal these days.
The Carribean is a s
thole, it's Southwark with more sunshine, and you'll drink yourself to death within a year or two.The Antipodes are full of English losers who have run away and are as bitter as the less educated locals.
The Far East is full of fat Westerners with their cocks hanging out and munchkins scampering all over the place.
Africa is off the list no that SA has clearly entered a long period of slow decline re safety etc.
The Middle East, is well, the Middle East.
Monaco, Andorra, Lux, Switzerland etc are just riddled with absolute a
holes.Basically, unless you have the enormous sums that enable you to just use an offshore jurisdiction as a base and then move freely around the globe as it suits your mood the concept of leaving Britain for a static tax haven is pretty s
t. As anyone who has genuinely looked into it or done it will know.Even most expats cannot deal with staying in their location if they are not working.
The simple fact is that for 99.9% of Britons it is better to graft it out in the UK, take it in the arse from the tax man and enjoy your life. 99.9% of those people don't realise this. Some even go so far as to sell up and then 2 years later wake up one morning in some sunny s
thole and realise they've ruined their life.Eric Mc said:
Whuich part of Ireland - Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic?
Dublin I tink.One of the first things the Yanks did was arrest him at the airport - again he would not give me a straight answer as to why.
He made his money in UK resi property and I gather he has benefited from one or maybe two tax-free "uplifts" ie only gains made since the uplift are taxable.
Manks said:
Eric Mc said:
Whuich part of Ireland - Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic?
Dublin I tink.One of the first things the Yanks did was arrest him at the airport - again he would not give me a straight answer as to why.
He made his money in UK resi property and I gather he has benefited from one or maybe two tax-free "uplifts" ie only gains made since the uplift are taxable.
Obviously, if he had moved to Belfast he would still have been resident in the UK.
Eric Mc said:
Living in Dublin, he would have set up a tax residency outside the UK - so the start date for counting towrds his non-UK Tax Residency status would be his arrival in Dublin.
Obviously, if he had moved to Belfast he would still have been resident in the UK.
So why not skip Dublin and just got to Florida - which is where he ended up.Obviously, if he had moved to Belfast he would still have been resident in the UK.
Manks said:
So why not skip Dublin and just got to Florida - which is where he ended up.
I imagine he went to Ireland to sort out some tax issues.If you go to the US direct from Britain then you are subject to British tax law until you become a US citizen at which point you are subject to their tax law, so no savings to be had in any way.
If you go to a tax haven inbetween then you can 'in theory' sort out your UK tax situation in a lower tax environment, move your wealth into a trust etc and then go to America.
The reason, I suggest he may have moved assets into a trust is because he is being cagey. If it's just a question of selling up UK assets from Ireland to minimise tax and then take the cash to the US then that's one thing, but if he is moving his assets into say an IoM trust or similar and then going to the US then under US law he is still taxable on those assets if he becomes a citizen, hence wanting to keep very quiet about it.
At the end of the day an offshore specialist could probably give you a couple of very clear explanations.
DonkeyApple said:
Manks said:
So why not skip Dublin and just got to Florida - which is where he ended up.
I imagine he went to Ireland to sort out some tax issues.If you go to the US direct from Britain then you are subject to British tax law until you become a US citizen at which point you are subject to their tax law, so no savings to be had in any way.
If you go to a tax haven inbetween then you can 'in theory' sort out your UK tax situation in a lower tax environment, move your wealth into a trust etc and then go to America.
The reason, I suggest he may have moved assets into a trust is because he is being cagey. If it's just a question of selling up UK assets from Ireland to minimise tax and then take the cash to the US then that's one thing, but if he is moving his assets into say an IoM trust or similar and then going to the US then under US law he is still taxable on those assets if he becomes a citizen, hence wanting to keep very quiet about it.
At the end of the day an offshore specialist could probably give you a couple of very clear explanations.
Manks said:
This would make sense. I can imagine that he disposed of his assests in their entirety from Dublin, which I am guessing has more favourable CGT rules than us.
Maybe. People used to head down to Gib and buy a crappy flat (home) for the purpose of disposing of assets with tax liabilities from there, once done they would usually toddle off. Many came back to the UK but I suspect they are now being persued.Manks said:
Eric Mc said:
Living in Dublin, he would have set up a tax residency outside the UK - so the start date for counting towrds his non-UK Tax Residency status would be his arrival in Dublin.
Obviously, if he had moved to Belfast he would still have been resident in the UK.
So why not skip Dublin and just got to Florida - which is where he ended up.Obviously, if he had moved to Belfast he would still have been resident in the UK.
Manks said:
DonkeyApple said:
Manks said:
So why not skip Dublin and just got to Florida - which is where he ended up.
I imagine he went to Ireland to sort out some tax issues.If you go to the US direct from Britain then you are subject to British tax law until you become a US citizen at which point you are subject to their tax law, so no savings to be had in any way.
If you go to a tax haven inbetween then you can 'in theory' sort out your UK tax situation in a lower tax environment, move your wealth into a trust etc and then go to America.
The reason, I suggest he may have moved assets into a trust is because he is being cagey. If it's just a question of selling up UK assets from Ireland to minimise tax and then take the cash to the US then that's one thing, but if he is moving his assets into say an IoM trust or similar and then going to the US then under US law he is still taxable on those assets if he becomes a citizen, hence wanting to keep very quiet about it.
At the end of the day an offshore specialist could probably give you a couple of very clear explanations.
Ireland Capital Gains
The rate of tax payable on capital gains in 2010 is 25% for individuals (UK - 18% or 28%(Higher Rate) - 10% for business assets)
A capital loss may be offset against a capital gain in the current year, or against a capital gain in the coming years.
There are exemptions from capital gains in the following cases, among others, subject to certain conditions:
The first EUR 1,270 of the capital gain (UK - £10,100).
Gains from lotteries and betting (as UK).
The sale of a main residential asset (as UK).
Companies pay in general 12.5% on sale of assets.
For certain capital gains the tax rate is 25% or 40%.
Companies holding at least 5% of an investee can have a participation exemption, subject to certain terms.
An old colleague of mine left the UK years ago (back in the 90's and maintained the 91 day/180 day requirement. He kept a house in the UK, a car and a bank account for small maintenance purchases primarily for the house there. All of his business was outside of the UK including owning a couple of properties, bank accounts etc. He had no direct family or any income from the UK. He used to visit the UK fairly regularly, like once a month for 3-4 days. The IR took a look at his situation and found no problems.
It can be all very subjective.
A final court decsion on a person's domicile can rest on an overall "feel" for the situation. Fulfilling all the date requirements and assets owned in "the old country" requirements are only a general indicator rather than proof positive as to where an individual's domicile might lie.
A final court decsion on a person's domicile can rest on an overall "feel" for the situation. Fulfilling all the date requirements and assets owned in "the old country" requirements are only a general indicator rather than proof positive as to where an individual's domicile might lie.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff