Labour tells Rishi Sunak to come clean on whether he has benefited from wife’s non-dom status
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Labour is demanding that Rishi Sunak answer 12 key questions about his wife’s non-dom status, including whether he has benefited personally.
As the controversy grows, the chancellor has been urged to set out how much tax has been saved and how he has “ensured he is not involved in Treasury discussions” about the rules.
“As chancellor it is crucial you both follow the rules and lead by example,” James Murray, a shadow Treasury minister has written.
“Any impression that there is one set of rules favouring a few, and another for everyone else, threatens the integrity of tax policy in our country.”
The letter comes after Boris Johnson suggested it is wrong to ask questions about Akshata Murty’s non-dom status – revealed by The Independent – because families should be kept out of politics.
The prime minister swerved the row, despite pressure for her to explain her claim that she has non-dom status because she is an Indian citizen – which was ridiculed by tax experts.
They pointed out that that a person must request non-dom status and then choose whether to pay UK tax on foreign income, or claim “remittance basis” to avoid that.
Labour says the questions the chancellor must answer are:
* How much have you benefited from Ms Murty’s tax status as a ‘non-dom’?
* Has Ms Murty ever claimed the remittance basis?
* Do you accept that claiming the remittance basis is an “active choice” and not something that follows automatically from citizenship?
* What is the location of Ms Murty’s claimed domicile?
* Why is it not the UK, given her life suggests she intends to permanently remain in the UK?
* For how long has Ms Murty been claiming the remittance basis?
* How much tax has been saved by claiming the remittance basis?
* Where are all of Ms Murty’s non-UK income and gains fully taxed?
* Does Ms Murty hold investments/property through trusts or companies in offshore jurisdictions?
* Will Ms Murty commit not to put assets into trusts before relinquishing remittance basis – after 15 years – to avoid resultant tax?
* Do you support the claim of Ms Murty’s spokesperson that her Indian citizenship means she must be treated as non-domiciled for UK tax purposes?
* What measures have you put in place to ensure that you are not involved in Treasury discussions around potential amendments to the non-domicile status rules?
Mr Murray added: “It appears Ms Murty has used her ‘non-domicile’ tax status to reduce the amount of tax she pays on her overseas earnings.
“In the public interest, I would urge you to be transparent about the details of this matter without delay.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments