
EXCLUSIVE The mansions that could hit the market in Britain's billionaire exodus: From lavish country estates to luxury London townhouses, the UK properties owned by the super-rich as they flee Labour's tax raids
Several of the UK's richest residents have already left or announced plans to leave in the wake of Labour's tax raids, including the axing of the non-dom regime.
Norwegian shipping magnate John Fredriksen recently put his £250million, 300-year-old Chelsea pile on sale after declaring that 'Britain has gone to hell'.
But he is far from the only tycoon to be packing their bags, with research by New World Wealth suggesting the UK has lost 18 dollar billionaires over the last two years - more than any other country in the world.
Brothers Ian and Richard Livingstone, who oversee a £9billion property empire in the UK and abroad, an online casino and plush Monte Carlo hotel, have quit Britain for Monaco.
They are also the owners of Dropmore House, a grade I-listed manor in Buckinghamshire that was built in the 1790s for Lord William Grenville, who as Prime Minister pushed through the abolition of slavery.
The stately pile, which was considered uninhabitable before a massive restoration in 2006-2008, includes 220 acres of beautiful grounds. The Livingstone brothers bought the house and the land in 2012, but there is no sign they are selling despite moving their tax residency.
Another jewel in the crown of their £5.4million property portfolio is nearby Cliveden, the country house turned luxury hotel made famous by the 1960s Profumo scandal.
Mr Mittal owns a superyacht called the Alaiya. It is more than 100 metres long
Labour donor Laskhmi Mittal, who's been reported as telling friends that he would 'probably' leave the UK, owns a vast property portfolio that includes a Kensington mansion dubbed 'London's Taj Mahal'.
Overlooking Kensington Palace, 8-19 Kensington Palace Gardens features 12 bedrooms and a swimming pool, and was considered the world's most expensive home shortly before Mr Mittal bought it for £60million in 2008.
Featuring marble from the same quarry as that used for the Taj Mahal, the house used to be owned by the Rothschilds and F1 tycoon Bernie Ecclestone, who reportedly sold up because his ex wife, Slavica, decided she didn't like it.
But Mr Mittal clearly did, with the Indian-born billionaire going on to buy two more houses on the street, including number 9A for £117 and a second for £70million. He gave these to his son and daughter respectively.
If he ever did ever sell up, it would be one of the biggest property deals seen in London.
Another billionaire developer, Malawi-born Asif Aziz - owner of the former London Trocadero on Piccadilly Circus - moved his tax residency to Abu Dhabi at the end of last year.
His vast property empire spans much of London's West End and includes Haymarket House in Soho and the Criterion Building, which houses the Criterion Theatre.
Rachel Reeves ' October budget has been blamed for driving the exodus by abolishing the non-dom tax regime and imposing inheritance tax on the worldwide assets of foreigners who have lived in Britain for more than 10 years.
And one leading tax advisor has warned that the flood of billionaires out of Britain could increase even further if Labour decides to impose a wealth tax - a move Sir Keir Starmer has notably refused to rule out.
David Lesperance, the founder of tax and immigration advisory Lesperance and Partners, said 50 per cent of his 'ultra-high net worth' clients had already departed the UK since Labour came to power and predicted half that number again would flee the imposition of a wealth tax.
'A large group moved because of the inheritance tax changes, but some decided they would be able to mitigate the hit because they were young, could get insurance to cover it, or could take advantage of some of the tax solutions available,' he told MailOnline.
'But if you bring in a wealth tax, that mitigation is neutralised, so it's another force that will drive those who haven't already left to leave.
'The general public might not mind the idea of wealthy people leaving, but the reality is that in a progressive tax system you are extremely dependent on a tiny number of taxpayers, so if they leave it will have a huge impact on tax revenue.
'And at the same time these golden geese feel they're being driven out of the UK, other countries are promising to offer them a better tax deal.
'If a wealth tax comes in, ultra-high net worth people will say ''London is nice, but not that nice'' and head to all the countries who are actively welcoming them.'
Mr Lesperance pointed out that wealth taxes - which are levied on the total value of an individuals' assets - are 'very difficult to administer', with many nations who have brought in the levies subsequently repealing them.
Given this, he believes Ms Reeves is more likely to introduce an exit tax - which takes the form of a one-off fee on people moving their tax residency to another country.
'When you have a wealth tax, people will give the lowest figure possible for the value of their assets, and if HMRC wants to challenge it, that will take time and money,' he said.
'I don't see a wealth tax because it won't be good for the goal of maximising revenue.
'I would say it's more likely the Autumn Statement could include an exit tax. But if that happens, advisors will be telling their clients to leave before it comes in.'
Several billionaires have been open about their reasons for leaving, with Aston Villa's Egyptian co-owner Nassef Sawiris blaming Labour's inheritance tax clampdown and a 'decade of incompetence' under the Tories.
Britain's ninth richest billionaire, John Fredriksen, declared last month that Britain had 'gone to hell' as he explained his reasons for moving his shipping firm from London to the United Arab Emirates.
The Norwegian had previously run his private firm, Seatankers Management, from an office in Sloane Square.
But he told newspaper E24 that the UK had become a worse place to do business.
'It's starting to remind me more and more of Norway,' he said. 'Britain has gone to hell, like Norway.
'People should get up and work even more, and go to the office instead of having a home office.'
Mr Fredriksen, 81, is currently in the process of selling his London home, the Old Rectory in Chelsea, reports The Times.
Nestled on Chelsea's oldest street in west London, the property boasts 30,000-square-feet of space, including 10 bedrooms and a ballroom, alongside a two-acre garden.
Experts believe that a listing of the prestigious home is unlikely to appear on popular property listing sites but instead will be sold in an 'off-market' private deal delivered by specialist agents.
A spokesman for Fredriksen declined to comment on whether the Old Rectory was on sale or claims that domestic staff had already been let go.
In May, The Sunday Times Rich List estimated that the UK had 156 billionaires, down from 165 the year before and the largest annual drop since the list began in 1989.
Putting an exact figure on the number of billionaires leaving the country is complicated by the difficulty of calculating an individuals' wealth and working out their tax residency if they do not make this information public.
It comes as new figures showed the number of non-dom taxpayers in the UK dipped last year prior to the Government clamping down on the tax status, official figures show.
There were about 73,700 people claiming non-domiciled tax status in the year ending in April last year, according to estimates from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
This was 400 fewer than the 2022-23 tax year, or a dip of about 0.5 per cent.
The number of non-doms, according to self-assessment tax returns, stood 3,900 below that in the tax year ending 2020.
It indicates a slowdown in the number of people claiming the tax status following a post-pandemic resurgence.
Non-domiciled means UK residents whose permanent home, or their 'domicile' for tax purposes, is outside the UK.
The regime meant that so-called non-doms paid tax in the UK only on income generated in the UK - meaning any income earned overseas was exempt from British taxation.
However, the Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April following backlash that wealthy residents could enjoy the benefits of living in the UK without paying as much tax.
Previous chancellor Jeremy Hunt estimated that scrapping the regime would raise about £2.7billion for the Treasury by 2028-29.
HMRC's data published on Thursday showed that some £9billion was raised from non-doms paying income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance last year.
This was a £107million increase on the prior year, despite the dip in the number of individuals.
Even so, campaigners insist HRMC will suffer in the long-term if some of Britain's biggest taxpayers are driven out.
Leslie MacLeod-Miller runs Foreign Investors for Britain (FIFB), a lobby group set up after the July general election.
He told MailOnline: 'Wealth is already shifting to countries like Italy, Dubai, and Switzerland.
'The government needs to show bold leadership and implement a bold policy change before Britain's 'golden geese' take their 'golden eggs' abroad to other countries that are actively courting them.
'The Office for Budget Responsibility warned this July that continued reliance on this small population of top taxpayers represents a growing fiscal risk.
'The government needs to act now, talk of a wealth tax will only increase the exodus of this high income – and high investing, employing and growth-creating group. Fiscal sense rather than ideology needs to prevail.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
28 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Investors need certainty to build the homes Scotland needs
We must unlock the investment that would deliver new housing, says Colin Brown Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament declared a national 'housing emergency' with some councils also declaring a housing emergency in their areas. The announcement of the emergency came two months after the Scottish Government laid the Housing (Scotland) Bill before the Scottish Parliament. The Bill continues to work its way through Holyrood and is expected to come into force later this year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Observers in the world of institutional investment and those working in the sector have been watching the progress of the Bill with interest. Of particular concern to investors are proposals around rent controls. Colin Brown is a Partner at TLT To give one example that has occurred recently – a London-based investment firm, was about to commit many millions of pounds to its first Scottish investment before discovering that a committee considering the Bill had voted to include purpose-built student accommodation as subject to statutory rent controls. All of the financial appraisals the firm had undertaken in making the decision to invest in Scotland were potentially being ripped up by MSPs and they had no power to do anything about this. In this situation, the Scottish Government moved quickly to make clear it would not support rent control for purpose-built student accommodation. Whilst the project is now starting to come out of the ground it remains to be seen whether they consider Scotland a safe haven for future investment. The rental income which institutional investors derive from their investments in bricks and mortar helps to fund many individuals' pensions. The investors need to understand that in exchange for making their money available they will get a return on their investment and this return has generally been left to market forces – the law of supply and demand. The housing emergency should make investment in new build housing in Scotland a win-win. The country gets much-needed new housing to alleviate the emergency, and the investment funds get to deploy their capital to deliver housing and make a return on their investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the UK in the first quarter of this year £1.2 billion was invested in private rental accommodation with the potential for £6bn to be invested by the end of the year. 76 per cent of this investment is being directed outside London, with Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds leading the way. Every penny of this investment creates new housing and sustains and creates job opportunities. The fact that Scotland has not been able to open the investment tap when cities in England are seeing private rental accommodation expand, could be seen as a missed opportunity. In launching the latest consultation, the Social Justice Secretary acknowledges that rental properties are a crucial element of the efforts to tackle the housing emergency. Government policy has slowed investment into the sector in recent years and resulted in lower investor confidence in providing much-needed housing. Rent caps and controls are of course not universally despised and a balance must be struck between protecting tenants and unlocking the investment that delivers the new housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The latest consultation on exemptions for certain types of properties from rent control closed earlier this month. There will be investors with capital looking for a home waiting to see if the legislative and political environment in Scotland means they should be deploying more of this in Scotland or continuing to explore opportunities which guarantee a better return elsewhere.


Scotsman
28 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Swinney: New work for bus maker Alexander Dennis being explored
The First Minister said details remain commercially sensitive Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Government is actively exploring a package which could deliver new work to the troubled Alexander Dennis bus maker, John Swinney has said. The First Minister said he could not provide further details due to 'commercial sensitivity'. He has asked the company to consider an extension to its consultation period while the package is developed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad General view of the Alexander Dennis site at Camelon, near Falkirk | PA Last month, Alexander Dennis announced it was proposing to consolidate its UK operations at a single site in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. The decision puts 400 jobs at risk at its facility in Falkirk in another blow to the Forth Valley, which has already seen more than 400 jobs go at the Grangemouth refinery this year. Mr Swinney said: 'Scottish ministers place the utmost importance on the presence of Alexander Dennis in Scotland and the retention of its highly skilled manufacturing workers. 'The Scottish Government has committed to exploring any and all viable options throughout the consultation period to allow the firm to retain its skilled employees and manufacturing and production facilities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'While I cannot provide details due to commercial sensitivity at this time, I hope this update provides the workforce and local community with further assurance that the Scottish Government remains wholly committed to supporting the future of bus manufacturing in Scotland. 'We will undertake this work in tandem with every other short, medium and long-term opportunity we continue to explore in close collaboration with the company, Unite, GMB, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and the UK Government.' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes will meet with the unions GMB and Unite today to update them on the proposal. Labour previously accused Holyrood ministers of overlooking Scottish industry in favour of ordering buses from China. Mr Swinney argued state aid regulations – in the form of the UK-wide Subsidy Control Act – prevent the Government from directly procuring from a single supplier like Alexander Dennis. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Speaking to The Scotsman last month, Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said: "They [the Scottish Government] have to look themselves in the mirror. But they should be leaving no stone unturned about how we can keep this bus company open."


New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Keir Starmer recognise Palestine?
Photo byThe image stays with you: this week it has covered the front pages of the world's newspapers. A mother, herself worn down and bruised by 21 months of conflict, cradles her child, who is swaddled in a bin bag. The child has lost a third of its body weight, it now weighs 6kg. Such images are not unique in Gaza, where starvation is general to a community after the blockade of humanitarian aid. The international community is looking on in horror, pleading with Israel to reconsider. On Sunday, the Israeli government issued a temporary reprieve allowing deliveries of aid into parts of Gaza. In the UK, there is pressure on the government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. This pressure originally mounted from the backbenches, but now, even members of the cabinet (Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Hilary Benn) are ramping up their private calls for Starmer to recognise Palestinian statehood. Over the weekend, 220 MPs from nine political parties – including 131 Labour MPs – signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. In the run up to the 2024 general election, the party's manifesto included a pledge to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution towards a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution, but a year on, and both Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, are yet to make good on this promise. The government's current position is that the UK will acknowledge Palestinian statehood as part of a peace process, but only at the point of 'maximum impact'. On Saturday, Starmer doubled down, rejecting renewed calls for the UK to reconsider and immediately recognise a Palestinian state, reasserting the UK's alignment with the US on this issue (a move which one cabinet minister told The Times was 'deeply inadequate'). The opportunity for Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state has presented itself more than once. Most recently, it was thought that Starmer might wait to go ahead with recognition alongside the French President, Emmanuel Macron. The UK and France argue a historical responsibility for the continuation of a Palestinian community in the Middle East, and so plenty suspected the countries would make a dual statement. But the opportunity for joint Franco-UK recognition has now passed. On Thursday 24 July, Macron announced France's intention to recognise Palestine at the upcoming UN general assembly. (Starmer, on the other hand, almost simultaneously released a statement sticking to the government line). Backbench MPs are losing their patience. Rachael Maskell, who lost the Labour whip last week following her involvement in the welfare rebellion, believes 'time is running out' for any governmental recognition of Palestine to have its desired effect. 'We should have recognised Palestine many, many years ago,' she said, 'it's been Labour party policy since 2014'. Maskell was one of 60 MPs to sign a letter to the Foreign Secretary in July calling for Palestine's immediate recognition. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby agreed: 'We had a vote over a decade ago about Palestine. [Recognition] was in the manifesto. What we're seeing now with the genocide, there's the political will now from all sides of the house to do something.' Byrne said now is the time for the UK to step up and take international responsibility. 'The UK has the opportunity to do the right thing. We are one of the world leaders and sometimes you need a leader to take the lead.' He criticised the government for acting 'extremely slowly' on Gaza. Even more moderate back-bench Labour MPs are ramping up the pressure on the government. One member of the 2024 intake told me, 'It's beyond horrific, we have to seriously consider our relationship with Israel.' Israel has now offered a brief cessation of its full scale aid blockade, and Lammy has said the channelling of aid into the Gaza strip must be 'urgently accelerated'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe No country is likely to get involved in this conflict militarily (unless a UN peacekeeping force is assembled), instead, more substantial diplomatic levers could be pulled such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement and imposing sanctions not only on the most outspoken ministers (as the UK has already done with Smotrich and Ben Gvir) but all Israeli political and military leaders involved in the conflict. Many Labour MPs would agree with this. Byrne called for an 'arms embargo, military cooperation to be ended, and comprehensive sanctions'. And it is not just Labour. Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hertfordshire said Lammy could end up in the Hague over his inaction on Gaza as he called on the government to press for an immediate ceasefire. This week the Daily Express carried a front page bearing the face of an emaciated Palestinian child crying 'enough is enough': concern over the plight of Palestinians now transcends party politics. This is unlikely to be an electoral downfall for Keir Starmer. But, with the pro-Gaza independent MPs taking seats last summer otherwise ordained for Labour, it is obvious that this is damaging to the party on its left flank. The Prime Minister may continue to prevaricate. But were we at the polls tomorrow, votes would be shed because of it. [See more: The abomination of Obama's nation] Related