“What he apparently can’t explain was why the Tories in Richmond Park thought it appropriate to select a non-dom candidate and then allow him to keep that status for at least two years.”

I have just checked your blog again and notice that you don’t actually ask that question, or in fact any other question. All that you say after my posting of Zac’s statement is:

Submitted by Mary Reid on Tuesday, December 1, 2009.
Hmm.. some contradictions here. Rather than quote the Guardian, Independent, Times, I’ll draw your attention to the Conservative-supporting Daily Mail today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231847/Zac-Goldsmith-Calls-Davi...

I suggest that you get your facts right. I did in fact post the comment on your blog, but I am NOT ‘David’, I did not post the above and I am not hiding behind anonymity.

“What he apparently can’t explain was why the Tories in Richmond Park thought it appropriate to select a non-dom candidate and then allow him to keep that status for at least two years.”

As has now been stated, the local Conservative party (of which I am not a member) did not know that Zac had non-dom status.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23779530-goldsmith-i-did-not-tell-of-my-non-dom-status.d

What he apparently can’t explain was why the Tories in Richmond Park thought it appropriate to select a non-dom candidate and then allow him to keep that status for at least two years.

I can’t stand comments that hide behind anonymity. If I’m foolhardy enough to say my piece openly then so should others.

But I will say that a tax-dodging millionaire telling everyone that he gives money to charity, so we should be grateful for his beneficence, makes me furious (yet “David” quotes it twice as a “defence”!). What a condescending idiot. Never mind not being resident for tax purposes in Britain – he’s not on the same planet as the rest of us.

Everyone else has to pay their taxes, and saying, ‘oh, I choose to do my own favourite good works, so I don’t have to pay for schools or hospitals or all that stuff poor people use’ wouldn’t cut any ice with the tax authorities. And slinging around threats of “defamation” like his dad used to to prevent anyone criticising his dodgy dealings – what a vile crook the man is. If he wants to be an MP, he can’t use his millions to bully any exposure into silence.

Come on, you tax-dodging modern Marie Antoinette, sue me. ‘Bullying Millionaire Tory Tax Exile Sues Lib Dem On Incapacity Benefit’ – even for Mr Goldsmith, that would be an award-winning headline. Bring it on.

It was the weekend’s edition of the Sunday Times which suggested that Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park, was non-domiciled for tax purposes. However, the man himself insists that the article was wrong in many of its assertions and yesterday sent the following message to local activists in the Richmond Park constituency in which he is standing, to explain that he has not in fact been a “non-dom” since April:

“The Sunday Times (29th November) ran a misleading article about my tax status which included outlandish remarks by the Liberal Democrat Lord Oakeshott. This gave rise to further Press coverage on the 30th November.

Although I have answered the questions put to me by the media, without hesitation, I wanted to write to you personally to explain the situation. Firstly, for Lord Oakeshott to suggest that I have dodged any tax and to claim that I owe millions to the British taxman is wrong and defamatory. Equally fallacious is his suggestion that I keep money offshore “free of income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax”.

I have never made any secret of my family’s background. My father created an international trust designed to provide his children with income. They, and I do not have access to the capital. However, virtually everything I do is in the UK, and therefore the vast majority of my income comes to the UK, where I pay the full rate of tax on it. I do not derive any benefits as far as either capital gains tax or inheritance is concerned since I am registered for the latter in the UK. My family has use of two homes that are owned by that trust. Despite what has been said, we do not live in them for free. I am subject to Capital Gains tax on the benefits I enjoy from using these properties.

My non-domicile status is a reflection of my father’s international status, but despite this, I have always chosen of my own volition to be tax resident in the UK. The Sunday Times article states that I “stand to lose huge sums by changing [my] tax status”. That is wrong. For me, the ‘non-dom’ status offers very few benefits. Before the newspaper had even made contact, I had already instructed my advisors to end it as of April 6th 2009. I am therefore no longer ‘non-dom’.

If there are any savings at all, they are massively exceeded by the fact that a very large proportion of my post-tax income goes towards supporting charitable and environmental causes that I believe in.

I do not believe family wealth accords any entitlement whatsoever in democratic politics. But nor do I believe it should be a barrier to my continuing to work for the things we all believe in.

Susan Kramer is now happy with the mansion tax

Bring it home, Susan!

Not to mention the contamination to the Conservatives’ national campaign.

Excellent.