best tax haven to avoid cgt without living there?
Discussion
Silver993tt said:
What I don't understand is why HMRC don't do the following:
1) Make the rules for residency/non-residency black & white, so everyone can understand if it's a yes or no to the their status. There'll be some winners and some losers in this, just like every set of regulations.
2) Each year, HMRC looks at the status of the individual and signs off their status - no going back on the decision years later.
Suddenly saying to someone, oh hang on for the last 25 years there's been an issue is nonsense. If HMRC do their checks each year (or maybe every 2 years) it makes much more sense for everyone involved. After long periods of time, people might not have the means to pay back crazy amounts of money they innocently thought was theirs (no doubt with interest also).
The rules are complex because peoples' situations aren't always straightforward.1) Make the rules for residency/non-residency black & white, so everyone can understand if it's a yes or no to the their status. There'll be some winners and some losers in this, just like every set of regulations.
2) Each year, HMRC looks at the status of the individual and signs off their status - no going back on the decision years later.
Suddenly saying to someone, oh hang on for the last 25 years there's been an issue is nonsense. If HMRC do their checks each year (or maybe every 2 years) it makes much more sense for everyone involved. After long periods of time, people might not have the means to pay back crazy amounts of money they innocently thought was theirs (no doubt with interest also).
If you simplify rules, you tend to leave bigger gaps in the rules which can be easily exploited. Complexity of tax law is usually the result of trying to plug gaps in original simpler legislation.
Eric Mc said:
The rules are complex because peoples' situations aren't always straightforward.
If you simplify rules, you tend to leave bigger gaps in the rules which can be easily exploited. Complexity of tax law is usually the result of trying to plug gaps in original simpler legislation.
Yes but making the rules more simple will aloow some people to suddenly qualify for an 'advantage' and others will suddenly not. Same with all regulation when it's made. It's the ambiguity that I think is unfair on many people.If you simplify rules, you tend to leave bigger gaps in the rules which can be easily exploited. Complexity of tax law is usually the result of trying to plug gaps in original simpler legislation.
For example, why not simply say:
no more than 100 days in any tax year (forget the 180/90 rolling over 4 years). Each day is classed as present at midnight on that day.
No business interest in the UK
No income from the UK over £10,000 (which would be taxed in the standard way i.e income bands up to £10,000. Foreign income not relevant up to this amount).
No problem owning assets in UK (property,cars etc)
Forget the rest about memberships, etc.
Nice and simple. Some fall into the status others don't.
It's reviewed and signed off by HMRC every year (within 3 months of submission and no going back on that decision either way (which would be simple to make based on the above criteria).
Job done.
Silver993tt said:
Yes but making the rules more simple will aloow some people to suddenly qualify for an 'advantage' and others will suddenly not. Same with all regulation when it's made. It's the ambiguity that I think is unfair on many people.
For example, why not simply say:
no more than 100 days in any tax year (forget the 180/90 rolling over 4 years). Each day is classed as present at midnight on that day.
No business interest in the UK
No income from the UK over £10,000
No problem owning assets in UK (property,cars etc)
Forget the rest about memberships, etc.
Nice and simple. Some fall into the status others don't.
It's reviewed and signed off by HMRC every year (within 3 months of submission and no going back on that decision either way (which would be simple to make based on the above criteria).
Job done.
I think the 100 days would straight off mean most people could go back to the Monday-Thursday fly in fun.For example, why not simply say:
no more than 100 days in any tax year (forget the 180/90 rolling over 4 years). Each day is classed as present at midnight on that day.
No business interest in the UK
No income from the UK over £10,000
No problem owning assets in UK (property,cars etc)
Forget the rest about memberships, etc.
Nice and simple. Some fall into the status others don't.
It's reviewed and signed off by HMRC every year (within 3 months of submission and no going back on that decision either way (which would be simple to make based on the above criteria).
Job done.
Philip Green has no business interests in the UK
DonkeyApple said:
I think the 100 days would straight off mean most people could go back to the Monday-Thursday fly in fun.
so what? They won't be generating much income from the UK (if at all) and to be honest, the vast majority won't bother travelling each weekend after the first 6 months due to the time/cost involved, so that issue will be very small indeed.Silver993tt said:
Yes but making the rules more simple will aloow some people to suddenly qualify for an 'advantage' and others will suddenly not. Same with all regulation when it's made. It's the ambiguity that I think is unfair on many people.
For example, why not simply say:
no more than 100 days in any tax year (forget the 180/90 rolling over 4 years). Each day is classed as present at midnight on that day.
No business interest in the UK
No income from the UK over £10,000 (which would be taxed in the standard way i.e income bands up to £10,000. Foreign income not relevant up to this amount).
No problem owning assets in UK (property,cars etc)
Forget the rest about memberships, etc.
Nice and simple. Some fall into the status others don't.
It's reviewed and signed off by HMRC every year (within 3 months of submission and no going back on that decision either way (which would be simple to make based on the above criteria).
Job done.
...I assume you are talking non-dom now, not non-res??For example, why not simply say:
no more than 100 days in any tax year (forget the 180/90 rolling over 4 years). Each day is classed as present at midnight on that day.
No business interest in the UK
No income from the UK over £10,000 (which would be taxed in the standard way i.e income bands up to £10,000. Foreign income not relevant up to this amount).
No problem owning assets in UK (property,cars etc)
Forget the rest about memberships, etc.
Nice and simple. Some fall into the status others don't.
It's reviewed and signed off by HMRC every year (within 3 months of submission and no going back on that decision either way (which would be simple to make based on the above criteria).
Job done.
Silver993tt said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think the 100 days would straight off mean most people could go back to the Monday-Thursday fly in fun.
so what? They won't be generating much income from the UK (if at all) and to be honest, the vast majority won't bother travelling each weekend after the first 6 months due to the time/cost involved, so that issue will be very small indeed.The simple fact is that it is not in UK Plc's interest to have successful people leave, so if they do then they have to bugger off completely and leave everything behind. You certainly don't want people retaining UK businesses and assets while sitting offshore behind trusts etc not paying any tax.
Silver993tt said:
GT03ROB said:
...I assume you are talking non-dom now, not non-res??
Actually, non-resident. Maybe the non-domicile should be scrapped or made again, much more simple to understand.Non-res for 99% of people really is very straightforward as it is. I've never had an issue with IR, short letter declaring myself non-res, fill in a form, claim split year on that years tax return. When I come back anthe letter declaring myself resident gain, fill in another form, claim split year on that years tax return. In between IR couldn't give 2 hoots. It really is that simple for most people.
Eric Mc said:
As I have said a couple of times, "domicile" is the complicated concept to understand.
Sure, I agree but as I said earlier why not simplify it like non-res? For example, a person can only claim non-dom status if both parents were born outside of the UK and only claim domicility in the country of his/her mother or father? Nice and simple.The trouble is, it also has to try and accomodate other countries' rules on domicile status. The UK does not work in a vacuum.
Imagine the problems if two or more countries claimed an individual's domicile.
Domicile is complicated because peoples' personal backgrounds can be very complicated - especially in the modern world of mass international movement and people having multiple homes or bases in differing countries.
Imagine the problems if two or more countries claimed an individual's domicile.
Domicile is complicated because peoples' personal backgrounds can be very complicated - especially in the modern world of mass international movement and people having multiple homes or bases in differing countries.
On the broad subject of Taxation the old adage of balancing simplicity with equity still holds good.
I think the IR are vastly easier to deal with then the VAT lot.
My professional enquiries re registration, liability to tax, interpretation of legislation, advent of recent cases, latest ruling by Commissioners etc has always produced a helpful informative and constructive response from the IR.
I have even known IR Inspectors tip the wink about the reasons for a clients investigation. They seek a resolution not a sacrifice unless the client appears to be a real Darth Vader. Then they can be a bit challenging.
The VAT lot on the other hand are virtually unresponsive to enquiries. Its a devils own job to get a ruling and its only through my contacts with their senior enquiry teams that I can get any help at all.
A bit off subject but I don't suppose the amalgamation will improve things.
Returning to this topic I assume the OP has read the responses looked at the experience and the reality of the situation has dawned.
Offshore avoidance is simply NOT COST EFFECTIVE for ordinary mortals.
I would suggest the 95% of offshore avoidance in the UK by UK based individuals is in fact NOT avoidance but either knowingly being economical with the truth, and under informing the Revenue about the full details of a transaction, or knowingly misinforming the Revenue and therefore not paying the tax due.
This is NOT avoidance.
I challenge anyone to put up a situation where a UK based individual can utilise offshore methods to avoid tax whilst living in the UK, having a base in the UK, family in the UK, health services in the UK and therefore being domiciled in the UK.
The essence really is the status of the control of the transaction.
You cannot avoid tax on a transaction if the control remains in the UK because no matter how many firms you filter this through or countries you move the funds through you are`stymied by the over view of these transactions constituting a device under UK law and therefore being totally illegal.
Transactions which are carried out with the intention of avoiding tax that have in themselves no practical business purpose are automatically unlawful under current UK law. The transaction must have a commercial viability in itself.
Vast amounts of complex structures fall flat on this point.
The anti avoidance legislation has been refined over 50 years and it cannot be easily outmanoeuvred. It was written by very clever people to catch as many as possible and it succeeds.
Not cost effectively anyway.
I think the IR are vastly easier to deal with then the VAT lot.
My professional enquiries re registration, liability to tax, interpretation of legislation, advent of recent cases, latest ruling by Commissioners etc has always produced a helpful informative and constructive response from the IR.
I have even known IR Inspectors tip the wink about the reasons for a clients investigation. They seek a resolution not a sacrifice unless the client appears to be a real Darth Vader. Then they can be a bit challenging.
The VAT lot on the other hand are virtually unresponsive to enquiries. Its a devils own job to get a ruling and its only through my contacts with their senior enquiry teams that I can get any help at all.
A bit off subject but I don't suppose the amalgamation will improve things.
Returning to this topic I assume the OP has read the responses looked at the experience and the reality of the situation has dawned.
Offshore avoidance is simply NOT COST EFFECTIVE for ordinary mortals.
I would suggest the 95% of offshore avoidance in the UK by UK based individuals is in fact NOT avoidance but either knowingly being economical with the truth, and under informing the Revenue about the full details of a transaction, or knowingly misinforming the Revenue and therefore not paying the tax due.
This is NOT avoidance.
I challenge anyone to put up a situation where a UK based individual can utilise offshore methods to avoid tax whilst living in the UK, having a base in the UK, family in the UK, health services in the UK and therefore being domiciled in the UK.
The essence really is the status of the control of the transaction.
You cannot avoid tax on a transaction if the control remains in the UK because no matter how many firms you filter this through or countries you move the funds through you are`stymied by the over view of these transactions constituting a device under UK law and therefore being totally illegal.
Transactions which are carried out with the intention of avoiding tax that have in themselves no practical business purpose are automatically unlawful under current UK law. The transaction must have a commercial viability in itself.
Vast amounts of complex structures fall flat on this point.
The anti avoidance legislation has been refined over 50 years and it cannot be easily outmanoeuvred. It was written by very clever people to catch as many as possible and it succeeds.
Not cost effectively anyway.
In certain circumstances using a company in a country with lower Corporation Tax can help to defer and/or reduce total effective tax rate and total tax payable. Take professional advice.
OP, check Cyprus for your sharedealing.
Remember its relatively easy to move money offshore, but it can be almost impossible to repatriate it to spend it onshore without paying more tax.
OP, check Cyprus for your sharedealing.
Remember its relatively easy to move money offshore, but it can be almost impossible to repatriate it to spend it onshore without paying more tax.
Silver993tt said:
Yes but making the rules more simple will aloow some people to suddenly qualify for an 'advantage' and others will suddenly not. Same with all regulation when it's made. It's the ambiguity that I think is unfair on many people.
Perhaps slightly O/T, but I completely agree with you that the system could and should be massively simpliefied. Simple rules, unified rates of tax for dividends, earnings, interest etc, and a simple flat rate that moves every five years or so in line with economic need.However, we then wouldn't need most of the tens of thousands of people currently employed by HMRC and HMT, and nobody is going to make that political call, so they will stay in situ, keeping everything as complicated as possible.
emicen said:
Eric Mc said:
HMRC has already halved in size over the past 10 years. By 2020, the current 100 plus tax offices will be reduced to just 13.
Whilst all the noise about tax avoidance has more than doubled in the same time 
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff