Following stories this week that the government is preparing to change course, a prominent private client lawyer makes a few predictions on what might happen as a result of the UK's resident non-dom system being abolished.

Following reports that UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, might soften the impact of how the resident non-dom status is to end, advisors have reacted. Most appear sceptical of any major changes. For many, sentiment appeared to be summed up as “too little, too late.”

One of the most prominent critics of the way in which the non-dom system is being axed is James Quarmby, partner, head of private wealth at Stephenson Harwood. He is also a member of this news service’s editorial board. For some time, we’ve talked to Quarmby about this issue and he's explained why prompting wealthy individuals to leave the UK is a mistake that could be hard to reverse, and what arguments should be made to shift policy. He gives his views below. As always, the editors value input and feedback, however critical. The usual editorial disclaimers apply. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com
 

There has been a lot of excitement over Rachel Reeves' comments to journalists at Davos about the non-dom rules. It seems that the government has been rather spooked by stories of millionaires (most of them non-doms) leaving in their droves. This public acknowledgement by Reeves is a tacit admission that the foundation for non-dom abolition – that non-doms might huff and puff, but they won't leave – is now looking rather shaky.

But what did Reeves say and what comfort can we take from it? Well, at this stage, only a little – perhaps enough for a modest glass of wine, but not enough to justify opening a bottle of champagne. The press articles mention an extension of the Temporary Repatriation Facility (which has already been extended once, from two to three years), plus reassurance that treaty protection will remain for inheritance tax purposes (which we knew already). So far, so boring.

What is more interesting is her statement that "we have been listening to the concerns raised by the non dom community," together with the news that the government is putting forward an amendment to the Finance Bill. If that amendment is restricted only to the TRF and tax treaties then it will be a big, damp squib and we can all go back to being depressed. However, if it is a reference to some wider policy adjustment, particularly relating to IHT on trusts, then we will have reason to break out the bubbles.

I know that the Foreign Investors For Britain (FIFB) group have been lobbying the Treasury hard on the IHT point, as well as pushing their own tiered tax regime (TTR) idea, so it's reasonable to believe that this lobbying, together with the almost unanimous feedback from the notorious “engagement sessions” last year, may lead to a relaxation of the IHT rules. However, I don’t think there is any chance of the TTR regime being adopted by the government, nor any dramatic changes to the four-year FIG regime.

Advisors will tell you that the cornerstone issue for nearly all clients is IHT. The decision to bring all pre-Budget trusts into the charge to inheritance tax, if the settlor is a long-term resident, was not only a shock, but shockingly naive. This was always going to be the final straw for any client of significant means, and it is the key reason why my bigger clients are packing their bags.

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the government will enable a full grandfathering of all excluded property trusts created before 30 October 2024, meaning that they will continue to be exempt from IHT in perpetuity, provided it has not been tainted. I also think there is a chance that the IHT tail may be shortened, perhaps to seven years, but with the "nose" remaining at 10 years (but with an outside chance of extension to 12 or 15 years). I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again, so do bear that in mind!