You’ve pretty much got to say that, don’t you?

Mr Gulliver said he had moved to Hong Kong with the bank when he was 20, and still – more than three decades later – considers it his home. “It is my permanent home and I would expect to die abroad,” he told reporters.

Because that’s sorta one of the definitions of non-dom really. At least it is if you were originally British domiciled.

20 thoughts on “You’ve pretty much got to say that, don’t you?”

  1. It’s a statement of opinion, not fact. HMRC shouldn’t take any notice of it in assessing whether a person is non-dom.

  2. Dicile depends largely upon intent. He has introduced this statement of intent AS FACT – and quite clearly after taking the best advice.
    HMRC should indeed go ahead and ignore all of that. And see just how far “We’ve no evidence but he’s obviously lying” gets them at tribunal.
    That would work in Ritchieland. Fortunately HMRC is just a tad more professional than Richard Murphy.

  3. Mr Gulliver said he had moved to Hong Kong with the bank when he was 20

    The sentence is misleading. The suggestion is that the bank sent him to Hong Kong but that was where the bank was headquartered. It would seem on the contrary that he opted to make his career overseas and the rest surely follows from there.

    Had he come up through the ranks of the Midland Bank, the same would not apply.

  4. @Andrew M

    Residence and intention are the two main factors in reviewing a domicile of choice. So of course the stated intention of the individual is important. With all due respect, if you weren’t aware of this, it suggests you need to do some research on the subject in order to become better informed.

  5. AndyC,
    Intention is indeed a factor, but a mere statement of intent isn’t enough. They look for evidence of your intentions in your actions. For example do you have a foreign bank account, foreign assets, etc. (On the other hand, a statement that you intend to remain in the UK would be used as evidence against a non-dom status.)

  6. Andrew M: more than thirty years ago Stuart Gulliver moved overseas to work for an overseas bank and has property overseas along with overseas bank accounts.

    There may be an argument to be had about non-doms but not so much about whether this man qualifies as one.

  7. “On the other hand a statement that you intend to remain in the UK would be used as evidence against a non-dom status”.
    And, if made in the context of an enquiry into non-dom status, used as evidence to have you sectioned.

  8. Meissen – I don’t doubt for a moment that Mr Gulliver counts as non-dom. My only quibble is with whether his self-assertion is worth anything. It’s all a bit Mandy Rice-Davies.

  9. I’m gonna tell the taxman that while I’ve been living here for 12 years and show no signs of leaving, I intend to leave the country before I die, therefore I should pay less tax.

  10. BinG

    So you think the rules are wrong. Fine; I agree
    But here is this guy playing by the rules. What has he done for which he shoyld be condemned? Are HSBC executives expected to make up different, tougher rules for themselves? Oh, I see they are.

  11. Unless you can disprove a man’s self – assertion then yes, it is worth everything.

    Deciding that each other’s self – assertions are prima facie worthless is to claim the right to call people guilty until proven innocent. And that folks is fascism…or the Courageous State to use the modern parlance.

  12. Well. is a stated intent the same as an actual intent? At what point do actions speak louder than words?

    By sheer coincidence, my current intent is also to retire to Hong Kong. I love the place enough to spend a month there every year. So why not dream?

    But I’ve no idea if (a) I will reach that age (b) will be able to afford it (c) they will let me in (d) the place won’t be some kind of oppressed vassal of its larger neighbour and thus rather less desirable a place to live.

  13. “Is a stated intent the same as an actual intent?”

    I will repeat, unless you have good evidential reason to say it isn’t then yes it is. What the hell is happening to is today when we think it appropriate to pursue the law on the basis of assuming men of good character are lying?

    You don’t like the law, then come back to England and try to change it; I will join you. In the meantime stop impuning the integrity of men who broken no law.

  14. Well, the law is so damn complicated on this matter, and based on so many subjective rather than objective elements, that even the person involved probably has no idea if he’s broken it or not. I’m not HMRC or a senior banker, or a tax researcher, but I sure as hell find it odd that you can live somewhere for 12 years and, with a straight face, claim not be fully tax-liable there.

    I guess this individual will be under the microscope now, so time will tell. Except it won’t because a deal will be cut before the courts are asked to decide.

  15. BiG @3.24pm

    You have to first actually establish a new domicile of choice by severing links with your domicile of origin before any claim to be domiciled there can stand up. If having done so, you return indefinitely to the domicile of origin to work, AND if you retain your links with your domicile of choice, then you should retain that domicile of choice.

    HMRC have won numerous residency cases but I believe they have yet to win a domicile case. I stand to be corrected though.

  16. How much of this thread is on Mr Gulliver and how much isa on change of domicile?
    Mr Gulliver moved to the Crown Colony of Hong Kong many years ago, married another of Her Majesty’s subjects from Australia, lived many years in the Far East, far closer to his wife’s origins than his own, his chikdren were born there, intends to go back to the Far East to be closer to his wife and Children when he retires and to die there.
    If there is a definition of domicile, Mr Gullier’s domicile is Hong Kong. BiG may not like it, well tough.

  17. John77


    No, I can’t think of any HMRC victories on domicile. Important wins on residence; nothing on domicile.

    BTW, I would change the law.entirely, starting and ending with the remittance basis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *