.png)
.png)
Is there a legitimate interest in the tax status of the chancellor’s wife? There is a strong case that as a private citizen her tax affairs are no concern to anybody other than HMRC. The idea that a man is responsible for his wife’s tax affairs disappeared in 1990 but, unfortunately her status as the chancellor’s wife makes that privacy difficult so sustain. If, for example, Rishi Sunak wanted to introduce new reliefs for non-doms I suspect that it would now be politically impossible for him to do so.
But if there is to be public debate let’s have a rational discussion. Talk of her using ‘schemes’ or linking non-domicile status to the slave trade does nothing to help public understanding. That said Mrs Sunak’s advisers have not exactly helped the situation by wrongly explaining her non-dom status by references to Indian citizenship laws. Then again, arguments among tax professionals about whether non-dom status is a matter of fact or of choice have further blurred the picture. The whole debate has been unedifying.
I have no insight into Mrs Sunak’s true domicile position, but I suspect that, looked at objectively, she might well be of Indian domicile. Whether she wants to claim the associated tax advantages – as she now has – is up to her. Should she be denied that right simply because of who she is married to? It is a matter for her own judgment.MPs are now automatically deemed to be UK domiciled. Are those protesting against Mrs Sunak’s status suggesting that spouses of MPs should also automatically be deemed to be UK domiciled? That appears to be what they are saying.
Let’s all take a pause for breath.
If you do one thing…
Remember to vote for the outstanding achievement awards – voting is open for the individual and organisation categories, see tinyurl.com/2syavrkx and tinyurl.com/bvdem9rb.
