|
|
11 Jul 2007
Taxpayers avoiding tax on offshore income by applying for non-domiciled tax status have been warned that the taxman will fight their applications in the courts.
An HMRC spokesman said the taxman would not tolerate such claims and would go all the way to the courts if it felt that taxpayers were making disingenuous applications for non-domiciled status in order to avoid disclosing offshore bank accounts.
'From the start this is not going fly. Where we suddenly see non-domiciled applications from people in their forties, fifties and sixties who have never claimed to be non-doms before, we are going to take a very hard look at them and challenge applications in the civil courts if we have to,' the spokesman said.
The comments suggest there could be some high-profile clashes over non-domiciliaries, and, in the absence of a review of the controversial rules, represent the hardest line the government has recently taken on the issue.
There has been frenzied discussion of the rules in the last week amidst fears that the tax amnesty will see tens of thousands 'discover' their non-dom status.
Figures released by HMRC showed that during 2004/2005 112,000 people had applied for non-domiciled status, which exempts UK residents domiciled abroad from tax on foreign earnings.
The number of applications represents a 74% increase on 2002 figures and experts believe that by the end of this year the number of applications could surge past 200,000 as taxpayers attempt to skirt the Revenue's crackdown on undeclared offshore bank accounts.
Pressure has been mounting on the Treasury to reform the current non-domiciled exemptions, with unions and tax campaigners claiming that the rules are unjust and deepen inequality between the rich and the poor.
Chancellor Alistair Darling has suggested that he is in favour of leaving the system in place, although officially the Treasury has maintained that the matter is under review and that no formal policy decisions have been taken.
Further reading:
Read about HMRC's offshore disclosure facility
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
Non-doms and the remittance rules
It's not just the new claimants to be not domiciled in the UK who will be subject to challenge.
Many non-doms (and especially those who have not previously claimed to be such) could be unaware of the remittance basis rule. They may thus be under the mistaken impression that the interest on their offshore bank account was not subject to UK tax regardless of any remittances made.
I suspect they will struggle to succeed with such arguments. And, of course, not all such claimants will be able to sustain their claim to non-UK domiciled status - as is made clear in the article.
More to the point I anticipate plenty of 'action' related to persons who claim both that they are not UK domiciled and that they are not remitting the interest to the UK. Why do I think these people will be 'approached'?
Quite simply because anecdotal evidence suggests that large numbers are unaware or misunderstand the rules on 'constructive remittances' that will render much of the interest taxable here even if it was not directly remitted to the UK.
Posted by: Mark Lee of BookMarkLee.co.uk, 19 Jul 2007 | 00:00