Akshata Murty tax affairs

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 23 of 23 << First < 19 20 21 22 23

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 22 Apr 22 1.10am
Originally posted by Mapletree Erm, I am in touch with Sarah Jones about HMRC at the moment. I am not whining, unless you count correcting the mistakes of others whining. So, once again. Murthy is what used to be called RNOR, Resident Not Ordinarily Resident, in other words with her prime domicile is in another jurisdiction. She can be so despite living here. Then when she has been in the UK for 7 out of the previous 9 years she has to pay the (relatively small) Ł30k charge. I say relatively small in the context of her overall income and that she is able to recover this charge from her Indian tax. All the time she is non-dom she pays her tax on a remittance basis, i.e. any money she brings into the country is then subject to tax as earnings. She will not have remitted any funds so no charge. After 7 UK years she is required to pay a charge of Ł30k per annum. That is because she is a non-dom. By extension is does mean she is paying on a remittance basis but it isn't called a remittance or a remittance charge All make sense? Yes, thanks. Basically, she pays Ł30k every year. Which is what I said. But it is not called remittance, it is called a charge. I stand corrected. But you have enlightened me. I didn't realise that remittance was on top of that. So, despite your assertion that she has remitted no funds into the country, if she does, she will pay more to HMRC in actual tax remittance. However, and whichever, it is still more than the average Joe Public pays to HMRC. Which was my original post that all the schoolkids got outraged about. The pedantics about "RNOR, Resident Not Ordinarily Resident" is just fluff. Non-Dom explains it better to the above mentioned. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (22 Apr 2022 1.12am) Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 22 Apr 22 1.10am

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Originally posted by Mapletree

Erm, I am in touch with Sarah Jones about HMRC at the moment. I am not whining, unless you count correcting the mistakes of others whining.

So, once again. Murthy is what used to be called RNOR, Resident Not Ordinarily Resident, in other words with her prime domicile is in another jurisdiction. She can be so despite living here. Then when she has been in the UK for 7 out of the previous 9 years she has to pay the (relatively small) Ł30k charge. I say relatively small in the context of her overall income and that she is able to recover this charge from her Indian tax. All the time she is non-dom she pays her tax on a remittance basis, i.e. any money she brings into the country is then subject to tax as earnings. She will not have remitted any funds so no charge.

After 7 UK years she is required to pay a charge of Ł30k per annum. That is because she is a non-dom. By extension is does mean she is paying on a remittance basis but it isn't called a remittance or a remittance charge

All make sense?

Yes, thanks. Basically, she pays Ł30k every year. Which is what I said. But it is not called remittance, it is called a charge. I stand corrected. But you have enlightened me. I didn't realise that remittance was on top of that. So, despite your assertion that she has remitted no funds into the country, if she does, she will pay more to HMRC in actual tax remittance.

However, and whichever, it is still more than the average Joe Public pays to HMRC. Which was my original post that all the schoolkids got outraged about.

The pedantics about "RNOR, Resident Not Ordinarily Resident" is just fluff. Non-Dom explains it better to the above mentioned.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (22 Apr 2022 1.12am)

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 23 of 23 << First < 19 20 21 22 23

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Akshata Murty tax affairs

Site Map

Sponsors