COME TO BRITAIN

Southland Times, Issue 20012, 28 October 1926, Page 8

COME TO BRITAIN

INCOME TAX DEMAND. A CLEAR EXPLANATION. London, September 9. Mr Bernard Tripp, C.8.E., has the following letter in The Times: — “The supporters of the ‘Come to Britain’ movement seem to have concentrated on the Customs duties, which are a very small item to overseas visitors, and missed the vital point of income tax. As the Act now stands, any visitor to Britain has to pay income tax if here over six months. Most of the overseas visitors arrange when ,coming for a holiday to be away twelve iinonths, and in order to escape income tax itake good care not to remain in Britain k over six months, and the balance of the time is spent on the Continent. The consequence is the Exchequer does not benefit, and many millions of pounds are spent abroad which, if the Act were altered to give 12 months instead of six free of income tax would go into the pockets of British traders instead of foreigners.” METHOD OF ASSESSMENT.

Lord Decies, Director of the Income Taxpayers’ Society, follows up to-day, in The primes, Mr Tripp’s letter, describing the method of assessment. Lord Decies thinks it of greater importance that not only visitors, but income tax inspectors and officials, should thoroughly understand what the liability is where residence extends beyond the six months. He is convinced that it is not so much objection to paying reasonable tax that drives visitors from these shores, but the apprehension they feel that they may be called upon to pay on their incomes. “Recently,” said Lord Decies, “I submitted a case on this very point before the Board of Inland Revenue, and the following quotation from the reply, which may be taken to be the official attitude, will piake the matter clear:—With regard to the question of the quantum of the liability to United Kingdom income tax—the matter with which you are particularly concerned f—it seems to me that the reply is to be found in the rules of Schedule D (rule 2 of fase IV., and rule 3 of case V.), which may be summarised as providing that the bability to United Kingdom income Tax pf a person not domiciled in the United Kingdom in respect of income from Dopi inion and foreign securities and possessions is to be based on the amounts of such Income remitted to this country. Applying this law to your case of “an American bho is domiciled in America,” his liability |o United Kingdom taxation on account of ricome arising to him from Dominion and loreign securities and possessions would be >ased on such amounts of his income from these sources as are remitted to this country. He would, of course, be liable also >n any income arising from sources in this Country, but unless he remits the whole of Us foreign income he would not be called Ipon to pay tax on his total income from ill sources.’ ‘lf it were generally known by our visjtW8 that their liability is only in regard n money brought here or sent here, prerimably for spending purposes, and if injectors of taxes were instructed that returns other than in regard to these sums rere not to be called for, we should hear «ery little of Americans and others being tightened away because of what they fear Hay happen.” I