The Financial Times Westminster Blog gives Zac Goldsmith a thorough going over today over his tax affairs and his status as a non-dom.
The FT piece includes pointing out how the Richmond Conservative Party’s own website talks about their desire to crack down on non-doms and also David Cameron’s past criticisms of non-doms for not paying enough tax. I wonder if they knew they were talking about their own candidate, Zac Goldsmith, at the time…
You can read the full post about Zac Goldsmith here.
Watch for rabbits out of hats
Nick Clegg interview draws 1.1 million viewers
Local Blog: Question Times with Bracknells PPC's
Well done Talan
Why does Daniel Hannan want UKIP to die?
America's insurers just got 32 million new customers given to them
Cash-gordon.com - Fail, thrice fail (and not because of the platform)
Time to negotiate
The Liberal Democrat general election prospects: what does history say?
Cab for hire
2 Comments
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.
Yours sincerely,
Zac Goldsmith
He doesn’t say that he changed his arrangements in April, but that he had done so with respect to tax liability from April this year – so it could have been done last Friday.
“I’m not a non dom, but the Trust that holds my assets is” is not an answer to the charge being made!