
Breakingviews - Britain's non-dom melodrama has uncertain finale
So-called non-dom status originated in the 18th century to shield citizens working in the British Empire from taxes back at home. Its modern iteration, which allowed those born overseas to only pay tax on what they earned in the UK or brought into the country, was increasingly hard to defend. After 2008, the government made those holding non-dom status for more than seven years pay a hefty annual charge, while ministers later capped the perk at 15 years from 2017. Prior to losing an election last year, Reeves' Conservative predecessor Jeremy Hunt scrapped the category.
So when Reeves confirmed, opens new tab non-dom status was no more last October, it was hardly a surprise. Even so, her reforms had several important nuances. Recent arrivals who have been in Britain for less than four years are still able to swerve taxes on overseas earnings. Until 2028, they can also bring accumulated wealth onshore at a discounted tax rate that starts at 12% and rises to 15%, well below the typical 40%-plus charge. But former non-doms who stayed beyond April 2025 are on the hook for UK inheritance tax on their worldwide assets, also charged at 40%. This can apply for a decade, even if they subsequently move elsewhere and die there.
This last provision caused deep consternation among Britain's wealthiest expats. High-profile non-doms like Egyptian billionaire Nassef Sawiris, opens new tab are upping sticks, while an Oxford Economics survey, opens new tab last year predicted over 60% of the group would follow within two years. On paper, this looks like a fiscal own goal for the UK. A cohort of wealthy but highly mobile people who previously paid some UK tax will take their contributions elsewhere. Some have decamped to Italy, which lets new arrivals shelter overseas income for a flat fee of 200,000 euros a year.
Yet the reality is more complicated. The consequences for Britain's fiscal position depend on how much UK tax non-doms previously paid; how many quit the country; and how much overseas wealth and income they take with them. The last two figures are hidden inside a black box.
Reeves knows how much the non-doms previously contributed to the exchequer. New figures, opens new tab for the tax year ending April 2023 – the last for which there is detailed HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) disclosure – show people claiming the status paid 7 billion pounds in tax on UK earnings and capital gains. That's how much is at risk if they all decamp.
Yet such a universal exodus is implausible. And those who stay will in future pay tax on their worldwide earnings, just like ordinary Brits. Estimating that contribution requires guesswork, because non-doms did not previously have to disclose their offshore wealth. Arun Advani of the University of Warwick hypothesises, opens new tab that the average non-dom's overseas income is similar to the figure rich Britons disclose to the taxman. If he's right, the average non-dom had offshore earnings and gains of 440,000 pounds in 2018. That figure has probably swelled due to inflation and rising asset values.
The problem is that there is no such thing as an average non-dom. Of the 42,300 people who used the status to shield offshore wealth, some 17,700 told HMRC that their overseas income and gains were less than 2,000 pounds a year, making them largely irrelevant to the exchequer. Of the remaining 24,600, some are still exempt from offshore tax because they have been in the country for less than four years. HMRC data shows that only 2,600 people paid a fee of 30,000 pounds a year or more to preserve their special status. This group may well have the largest hoard of offshore wealth. It also paid a big chunk of UK tax, accounting for 1.3 billion pounds of the 7-billion-pound domestic non-dom contribution, HMRC data shows.
The tax consequences for Reeves, then, boil down to two numbers. How much does the UK tax paid by former non-doms shrink as some of them leave? And does the additional tax on foreign earnings paid by those who remain make up the shortfall?
Answering that question involves lots of assumptions. The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), for example, estimates, opens new tab that the UK government will be worse off if more than a quarter of non-doms leave. By contrast the Office for Budget Responsibility, which monitors UK fiscal matters and has access to foreign governments' data on British taxpayers, reckons, opens new tab Reeves will on average pocket an additional 3.5 billion pounds a year between 2026 and 2030 from taxing former non-doms' overseas earnings and gains. The OBR does not disclose what happens to the domestic tax take, and stresses its figures are 'highly uncertain'. However, it assumes just 12% of non-doms will flee, implying a significant net gain for government coffers.
Measuring the scale of the exodus is further complicated by the fact that this cohort is already highly mobile. Last year, for example, 8,900 non-doms left, opens new tab Britain while 12,900 new ones arrived. It's also true that the decisions of a small number of very wealthy people could swing the results one way or another.
For Reeves, who expects the new regime and the temporary discount for bringing wealth onshore to raise 34 billion pounds by 2030, any shortfall is bad news, especially now that Labour's botched welfare reforms have left her with big fiscal holes. The Financial Times reported last month that she might limit the damage by tweaking the inheritance tax provisions, which the OBR projects will raise only 500 million pounds over the four years to 2030.
Even so, any comprehensive assessment of Reeves' decision will have to wait until January 2027, when tax returns for the year ending April 2026 are due. Before then, any accusation that she has made a major fiscal faux pas is pure guesswork.
Follow George Hay on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revolut eyes US expansion amid clash between Chancellor and the Bank of England over its UK licence
Revolut wants to expand in the US amid tensions between the Chancellor and the Bank of England over its plans in the UK. The British fintech firm is reportedly weighing up buying an American lender to allow it to operate in the US as the wait for full authorisation in the UK drags on. Revolut's application for a UK banking licence was approved in 2024 after a three-year delay, but it still faces restrictions on lending. It emerged this week that Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey blocked Rachel Reeves from brokering a meeting with regulators and Revolut to help the company secure a full licence. She had tried to set up talks between the fintech, the Treasury and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is an arm of the Bank. Bailey had concerns that the Bank's regulatory activities should be independent from political interference, the Financial Times reported. Revolut and the Bank declined to comment. The Treasury has been contacted. The US market would provide access to a large pool of customers and potentially higher deposits.


Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles'
July 30 (Reuters) - A former clerk to a pair of conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who was nominated by President Donald Trump to become a federal appeals court judge on Wednesday defended past comments criticizing "radical feminists' for trying to 'blur gender roles" and "undermine institutions like marriage." Eric Tung, a partner at the law firm Jones Day, was grilled by Democratic members of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about those and other comments as the panel weighed his nomination to become a life-tenured judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel also heard from three other judicial nominees, including Joshua Dunlap, a Maine litigator with a track record of pursuing Republican-backed court cases who is Trump's nominee to serve on the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the sharpest questions were directed at Tung, who Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California said was picked by Trump because of his "extreme conservative ideology and his associations with the conservative Federalist Society." Tung, who is based in Los Angeles, is a former law clerk to both Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, and described himself as an avowed originalist and textualist, the favored legal doctrines of judicial conservatives. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the panel's chair, called Tung "a stand out appellate lawyer" and "a great choice to serve on the 9th Circuit." Padilla and Senator Dick Durbin, the panel's top Democrat, zeroed in on remarks attributed to Tung by Yale's student newspaper when he was an undergraduate student in 2004 criticizing a speech by the then head of the feminist organization the National Organization for Women. 'I believe in emphasizing family and what it means for a woman to be a good wife or partner," Tung was quoted as saying. 'I believe in gender roles and that women are simply better than men at some things. When these radical feminists try to blur gender roles, they undermine institutions like marriage — institutions which hold society together." Padilla, who said the White House spurned his recommendation to nominate two other Republicans to a California-based seat on the 9th Circuit vacancy instead of Tung, called those comments "reprehensible" and pressed him on whether he believed men were better than women. Tung responded that he made the comments "over 20 years ago when I was an undergraduate in college." He cited his wife's own professional and political career history as he said she "is better at many things and not just some things than I am." He told Durbin he made those remarks because he found the speaker's views "extreme" and "because I believed at the time that the relationship between men and women was complementary and that the family should be strengthened." Durbin said the quote "wasn't a youthful indiscretion." He pointed to remarks Tung drafted for a recent Federalist Society event where he said "whether there's a constitutional right to abortion, same-sex marriage, sodomy ... the answer for the originalist is simple: no." "You seem to be questioning landmark Supreme Court decisions like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell," Durbin said. "Let me ask you point blank. Do you believe there's a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples?" Tung responded that the Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognized a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples, "and as a circuit judge, if I were so lucky to be confirmed, I would be bound by that precedent." He declined to address his current views on gender roles, saying it was an issue that could come before him as a judge. Read more: Republican US Senator Grassley clashes with Trump over nominations Trump names two new nominees to serve as appeals court judges


Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Long-serving ex-Tory MP Adam Holloway joins Reform
Another former Conservative MP has announced that he has joined Reform UK, saying it is the only party that has grasped 'the scale of our national peril'. Adam Holloway, who represented Gravesham in Kent between 2005 and 2024, said on Wednesday he had become the latest ex-MP to join Nigel Farage's party. The 59-year-old former Army officer said: 'There comes a moment for many soldiers – and most politicians – when you realise the battle you think you're fighting isn't the one your leaders are waging. 'That moment came for me watching Kemi Badenoch tell Trevor Phillips there are real differences between Reform UK and the Conservatives. She was right. 'The difference is the Reform leadership and voters grasp the scale of our national peril and back a party serious about addressing it.' Mr Holloway is at least the eighth former Tory MP to have joined Reform since the last election, following former party chairman Sir Jake Berry, former Wales secretary David Jones and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, who won the Greater Lincolnshire mayoralty for the party in May. Having served in the Grenadier Guards for five years, including during the Gulf War, Mr Holloway worked as a journalist for ITV and ITN before his election to Parliament in 2005. A strong supporter of Brexit, he was briefly a whip under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and was one of six Tory MPs to vote against censuring Mr Johnson after he was found to have misled the Commons over the Partygate scandal. He was himself reprimanded by Parliament's standards watchdog after improperly attempting to prevent the release of a character reference he had provided for former Tory colleague Charlie Elphicke, who was jailed for two years in 2020 for sexual assault. He lost his seat in last year's general election, falling 2,712 votes behind Labour's Lauren Sullivan. During the campaign, he told voters that backing Reform was 'effectively taking a vote from me' and 'helping Labour'. Mr Farage said he was 'delighted' to welcome Mr Holloway to the party, saying his parliamentary and military experience would be 'vital' ahead of the next election. He added: 'His bold move shows that we are the only serious option in Kent and is testament to the fantastic work our councillors are delivering across the region.'