After all the speculation ahead of today’s eagerly-awaited budget, the statement delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to MPs in the House of Commons this afternoon is giving advisers, their teams and their clients plenty to think about. The following brings you reaction to the headline measures announced, following her opening mantra for the government to ‘invest, invest, invest’ to promote growth whilst maintaining economic stability.
Of course, much of the direction of travel for today’s budget had been leaked/briefed out in advance, especially the headline measures. With her much-publicised goal of trying to find c.£40bn to fund public services and growth, a huge target, now confirmed by the Chancellor, given the fiscal ‘black hole’. The Chancellor has also had her hands tied by the manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. She has also confirmed last night’s statement regarding increases to the minimum wage.
However, by changing the debt rules, to allow govt borrowing to invest in capital projects such as infrastructure spending, some additional borrowing capacity can be created before she hits her fiscal rules. Plus tax changes to employer NICs – raising up to a whopping £25bn – plus changes to CGT, IHT etc. can contribute to the main measures the government wants to introduce such as extra spending for the NHS, recruiting more teachers and boosting investment in school buildings etc. It’s a major statement of intent and looks set to shape the rest of the parliament in the weeks, months and years to come.
What’s been the reaction from the industry to today’s budget measures?
But are marketwatchers worried about another ‘Kwarteng moment’, with possible adverse reaction from the markets to concerns about the cost of borrowing? Or has it all been briefed out enough to calm nerves? What about advisers worrying about tax changes and clients’ financial plans? What about the housing market? What about pensions?
Experts have been sharing their views and reactions to the headline measures announced in the budget statement today of direct relevance to advisers and their clients as follows:
Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter said:
“The Chancellor’s announcement of a 1.2% increase in Employers’ National Insurance is designed to generate immediate revenues without directly increasing taxes on individual workers in theory. However, it represents a complex challenge for businesses as they grapple with higher payroll costs. It’s also a technical change that many people won’t have a full understanding of so will not cause the kind of furore that upping income tax might have.
However, calculations show given the secondary threshold has dropped dramatically to £5,000 if an employee’s gross pay is £30,000 then an employer will see a £865.80 increase in their National Insurance costs for that employee. The total cost to employ someone on £30,000 will now be £33,750 compared to £32,884.20 under the previous rules. If a business wanted to keep their cost to that latter number than an employee’s gross salary would have to drop to £29,247.
For many employers, particularly those operating on tight margins, this increase in NI is likely to prompt a re-evaluation of salary structures and potential pay rises. Salary sacrifice schemes where employees voluntarily reduce their taxable income in exchange for benefits like additional pension contributions or even cars or bicycles could become increasingly attractive. By leveraging these schemes, employers can reduce their NI liability while providing employees with enhanced retirement savings, making them an appealing option in an environment of rising costs. This therefore might turbo charge businesses application of these types of schemes.
However, there’s a risk that businesses may choose to retain some of the NI savings from these schemes rather than passing the full benefit onto employees. This could lead to a situation where the intended boost to employee retirement savings is partially offset by employers managing their own cost burdens. Meanwhile, for those businesses that don’t adopt such schemes, the increased costs could dampen wage growth and limit hiring, with a knock-on effect on household incomes.”
Jamie Jenkins, Director of Policy, Royal London said:
“This was clearly going to be a challenging Budget, with the Chancellor seeking to address the nation’s funding gap, while at the same time trying to shore up public services and encourage economic growth. It is yet to be seen exactly how the changes announced today will affect businesses in practice, and how their response plays through to employment and wages. Hopefully, however, the most immediate and pressing decisions on taxation and public spending have now been made, and there will be some stability and certainty for both businesses and households in the years ahead.”
“An increase in employer NI will represent additional costs for employers. As a result, we may see an increase in schemes moving to a salary exchange arrangement as the increase will apply to salary paid and not pension contributions. Furthermore, business owning employers might want to consider how they structure taking money out of the business to ensure the most tax efficient outcome.”
Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, said:
“With commitments not to increase income tax, employee NI and VAT, it’s no surprise that the Chancellor has targeted Capital Gains tax (CGT) to help plug the nation’s financial ‘black hole’. With the annual exempt allowance having been halved and then halved again by the previous Government, down to £3,000 from April 2024, the only way of boosting the tax take significantly is through higher rates, which will happen from April 2025.
“While most CGT is collected from a relatively small number of people with significant wealth, anyone who is at risk of CGT will have a further incentive to make full use of tax-exempt savings vehicles. The annual ISA allowance remains at £20k and the pensions annual allowance is £60,000, albeit with lower limits for those with a ‘threshold income’ above £200,000.
“But ironically. there’s a risk that some individuals will be less likely to invest in high risk or high return assets outside of ISAs and pensions, as their higher CGT liability will take away some of the upside. This comes at a time when the Government is seeking to encourage greater investment in the likes of UK private equity, albeit with an initial focus on defined contribution pensions.”
“With employer rates of National Insurance hiked from 13.8% to 15%, and the lower threshold reduced from £9,100 to £5,000, many employers may be feeling ‘tricked’ by the pre-election commitment not to raise National Insurance. While later ‘clarified’ as just applying to employee NI, employers now face extra costs, and time will tell if this will filter down into lower pay increases or to less generous employee benefits in the future.
“Up until 6 January this year, NI was split into 12% for employees (2% above £50,270) and 13.8% for employers. In future, it will be 8% for employees (still 2% above £50,270) and 15% for employers. Employers will also pay their NI on a wider band, starting at £5,000, and with no reduction once earnings exceed £50,270. This shows a sharp swing from employee to employer NI.”
“It is worth remembering with employer NI going up to 15%, every £100 extra they spend on pay costs them £115. But as employer pension contributions don’t attract employer NI, instead of £100 pay they can for the same cost offer £115 in employer pension contributions. This makes pension as part of an employee benefits package even more ‘tax efficient’ for employers.”
“To justify this additional tax on employers, the Government now needs to prove that it will put the funds to good use. This could be through improved public services – including the NHS, which would subsequently benefit employees and hopefully improve their productivity.
“Historically, NI was positioned as paying for the NHS and the pay-as-you-go state pension. The Government has vowed to ‘fix’ the ‘broken’ NHS, and also committed to the state pension Triple Lock for the next five years. Each of these comes at a high cost.
“The links between NI and these expenditures were talked down by the previous Chancellor. While any year-on-year shortfalls are made good by the Treasury out of general taxation, the Government still reports on an ‘NI fund’ which shows flows in and out for these purposes. The increase in employer NI will mean any such top-up payments will be lower or less likely than they might otherwise have been.”
“Had the Government instead boosted NI receipts by applying NI to employer pension contributions, the burden would have fallen more heavily on those employers who are making more generous employer pension contributions. Where employers do offer more generous pension contributions, this can make a huge difference to the retirement prospects of their employees and the Government should be encouraging not discouraging this. So, we are pleased the Government did not go down this route. Indeed, doing so would have been ironic bearing in mind just how generous employer contributions are in many public sector pension schemes.”
Nick Henshaw, Head of intermediaries at Wesleyan, said:
“The changes announced today will prompt advisers to rethink their client plans in certain areas, not least the increase in capital gains tax on assets like homes, investments and shares, and pensions being brought into inheritance tax thresholds from 2027. However, the real work will be to reassure clients that any changes aren’t going to derail their longstanding plans.
“What’s really important is that advisers have a range of tools at their disposal to help deliver suitability, whatever the circumstances. This includes smoothed With Profits funds, which are going to be particularly helpful against a backdrop of greater market instability. Investing in smoothed funds could be an effective strategy for maintaining stable returns as part of a diversified portfolio.”
Hannah English, Head of DC Corporate, Hymans Robertson said:
“The increase in National Insurance Contributions (NICS) for employers from 13.8% to 15% announced in the Budget today, is likely to dramatically/substantially increase the costs for employers. While the perception that the recent reductions in DB scheme funding costs have created more than enough breathing space for extra national insurance contributions for UK corporates on their wage bills. We are concerned the opposite is true. Stacking another cost on the pay and benefits for every UK corporate may drive behaviours that yet again can harm today’s ‘working people’ in their DC pension schemes.
“Corporates may choose to stop sharing employer NI savings on salary sacrificed pension contributions. For an employee on a £32k salary making 5% contributions into their pension via salary sacrifice, the employee may currently benefit form an additional £221 per year by way of the valuable sharing of all NI savings. If employers decide to no longer share these savings this could have a long-term impact on the outcomes of today’s savers.
“The change announced by the Chancellor may be the final straw for those employers that have upheld their generous pension contributions despite difficult economic conditions. In this case, such scheme contribution structures may be increasingly get overhauled.”
Tony Hicks, Head of Sales at Copia said:
“The announcement in today’s Budget that the lower rate of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) will rise to 18%, and the higher rate to 24%, will have notable implications for advisers with clients who are holding assets within managed portfolio services (MPS) outside of tax wrappers, not least the ‘foreseeable harm’ rules under Consumer Duty, Copia Capital have warned.
“For unwrapped assets, standard “off the shelf” MPS services risk triggering a tax liability whenever a trade or rebalance is instructed. The nature of these services means the Investment Manager will have no line of sight to the end client, so is unable to account for their individual tax position. This risk has always been there but has been heightened in light of the recent increase to CGT.
“The rise in CGT will particularly impact high-net-worth individuals and investors, making it more likely these investors will exceed their allowance and pay tax on their investment gains each year. The Consumer Duty mandates that firms actively work to prevent such an adverse outcome for clients that could have been foreseen and acted on.”
Marcelo Goulart, Managing Partner, First Alliance, said:
“The overhaul in the non-dom regime is a colossal misjudgement and has exacerbated the damage that has already been done to the UK’s reputation as a prime jurisdiction for wealthy international people setting up homes and businesses. 80% of my clients have already left the UK or are taking steps to leave before 6 April 2025. Italy and Switzerland are leading destinations of choice.
“It is not only resident non-doms leaving, but it is also people who have no tax nexus to UK but have situs assets, are making plans to sell, or take those assets out of the country due to risk of IHT being imposed at some point in the future. Tax stability is of paramount importance in attracting inward investment, whilst uncertainty (on which the UK already had a poor history) is one of the biggest pain points making a country unattractive for the wealthy.
“If we want London to remain a global financial capital, you cannot have this mindset that treats wealthy foreigners as leeches somehow. Either you make it more (not less) attractive for them to come and stay, or they will make Dubai, Milan, and Zurich their base, as appears to be the case and London will eventually fade into just the capital of England.”
Victoria Price, Managing Director at Alvarez and Marsal Tax, said:
“Today, the Chancellor has dropped a bombshell on family businesses. Restricting business relief to a maximum of £1m could have dire consequences for some of the UK’s most historic companies potentially making it difficult for them to remain in family ownership.”
Rachael Griffin, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, said:
“The decision to continue the freeze on the IHT nil rate band (NRB) at £325,000 will pull many more estates, which many would consider relatively modest, into the inheritance tax net. The NRB has been frozen since 2009 and if it had risen in line with inflation, it should now be £503,879 so freezing this until 2030 will make this threshold even more antiquated. We are already seeing record breaking IHT receipts, and this change will compound this.
“Inheritance tax, which is already much maligned due to its complexity, will now affect more estates, particularly in areas where property values have increased sharply, pushing even average homes into the taxable category. The average net estate value reached £334,173 in 2019/20, meaning many will automatically surpass the NRB and may be faced with an IHT bill to pay. This has likely risen considerably in the years since, and the rapid increase in house prices will have played a significant part.
“According to the government, the average UK house price now sits at £293,000, rising significantly in certain areas of the country such as London and the South East. This leaves just £32,000 before the full nil rate band is exhausted and someone’s estate becomes exposed. However, given just yesterday Rightmove reported that the average new seller asking price is now £371,958, this could automatically make £46,958 of someone’s home taxable if they are not entitled to use the complex residence nil rate band.
“This shift could have far-reaching financial consequences for families who rely on inheritance to maintain financial security—whether to pay off mortgages, fund education, or supplement retirement plans. As more estates fall within the IHT net, the financial legacy that families have carefully planned to pass down will shrink, and the tax bill will rise.
“Families with higher-value estates are more likely to seek financial advice to mitigate their tax liabilities through careful estate planning. However, lower-value estates may not seek out such advice, leaving them more vulnerable to IHT without taking advantage of available reliefs or strategies. This could make the system even more inequitable, as those without access to advice will bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.”
Julia Turney, Partner and Head of Platform and Benefits, Barnett Waddingham, said:
“The government’s decision to increase employer National Insurance is a difficult pill to swallow for businesses in the UK. This might turn out to be a short-sighted move which could have serious implications for employee benefits and public health. Many employers currently use the savings they receive from National Insurance relief to boost pension contributions or fund additional benefits like healthcare and life assurance. If these savings disappear, many employers could make the difficult decision to reduce or cut these benefits altogether.
“This is particularly concerning for healthcare benefits, such as private medical insurance. If fewer people have access to private medical insurance, this could place an additional burden on an already overstretched NHS. The Government must take more positive steps toward addressing the health crisis in collaboration with employers and insurers.”
“In a budget full of tricks, one possible treat for British workers is the announcement of new protections against unfair dismissal and workplace bullying, as well as better access to paternity and maternity leave. These measures demonstrate a commitment to creating safer, fairer workplaces that support the well-being and security of working families.
“Additionally, the proposed “Get Britain Working” white paper, along with initiatives to combat fraud and tax avoidance, signal the government’s intent to increase stable employment while protecting public funds. By potentially reducing strain on the benefits system, these steps aim to build a stronger, more resilient job market. However, the impact of these policies will depend on how effectively they are put into practice.”
Abby Glennie, manager of the abrdn UK Smaller Companies Fund, said:
“The Government did not quite throw in the hand grenade for AIM entrepreneurs and investors that many expected – and valuations of AIM companies ticked up immediately after the announcement, supported by buying demand. However, inheritance tax (IHT) applied on AIM assets at 20% still makes investing in the market less attractive than previously.
“With tax benefits halved, investors will need to be more positive on return prospects to allocate cash to AIM and this could swing allocations towards other areas. UK smaller companies have been battered by a decade of difficulties – from the collapse of their natural investor base (UK pension funds) to increasing regulation – so now is the time to be looking at how we can support them, not pull the rug out from under them. AIM aligns with the rhetoric on investing in growth and innovation, and the tax cuts on IHT here go against supporting external capital investment in this area.
“Ultimately, it is not the companies who are the issue. The quality and growth dynamics remain strong, and very competitive versus listed smaller companies markets globally. The problems are external – and, with the right policy conditions in place, we could really see this area of the stock market thrive.”
Rachel Winter, Partner at Killik & Co, said:
“AIM shares have suffered from a perfect storm in recent years. Brexit has damaged confidence in British companies, and higher interest rates have made investors more risk adverse and less willing to hold shares in smaller companies. The AIM index lost half its value between late 2021 and late 2023.
“There were some tentative signs of a recovery in 2024, but the index had been heading downhill again since Labour’s victory in the election due to fears that Business Relief would be removed. The index has rallied today on the news that AIM shares will attract an inheritance rate of 20% rather than the usual 40%.”
Sophie Dworetzsky, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, said:
“With the government announcing an increase in Capital Gains Tax, the concern is this sends a strong signal that the UK may be becoming less tax-friendly for long-term investors. This could discourage much-needed investment, especially at a time when the UK needs to remain competitive on the global stage. Capital may increasingly be redirected to more favourable jurisdictions.
Entrepreneurs and business owners will now be rushing to assess their exit strategies, and we can expect a heightened focus on tax-efficient planning going forward. While business asset disposal relief remains, it would be helpful see more expansive measures tailored for investors and entrepreneurs, such as a return to taper relief, we’re also likely to see a reduction in long-term investment.”
Jason Piper, Head of Tax and Business Law at ACCA said:
“The cap on corporation tax at 25%, as announced before the Budget, is intended to show off the UK as a place to do business in the G7. While it is too early to tell if the frozen rate will attract investment to the UK, the business reaction so far seems to be lukewarm.”
“The announcement of a Corporation Taxes Roadmap is a step in the right direction, with confirmation of stability around many central features. Sophisticated investors will always look at more than the headline rate, and simplification and reform of the way taxable profits are calculated would reduce the administrative burden for smaller businesses and increase certainty for larger ones.“
Craig Ritchie, Partner at GSB Wealth said:
“Overall, the budget has not been as hard hitting on personal finances as perhaps expected, largely thanks to the increase in employers’ National Insurance. Increases to Capital Gains Tax are not as high as expected and level the playing field once more between shares/funds and property investing.
“It is good to have clarity on Inheritance Tax nil rate band (NRB) continued freeze, although this will bite as more estates fall into the IHT brackets. The exposure of inherited pensions to IHT will reduce the attractiveness of pensions as a wealth transfer tool, changing the landscape for pensions.
“Bringing AIM stocks into the scope of IHT, even at a reduced rate, will have a negative impact on the value of smaller UK companies, decimating the viability of AIM as an IHT planning tool. The abolition of the non-domicile scheme and move to a residency based scheme presents huge opportunities for UK expats, who intend to remain outside of the UK to pass on wealth free of UK IHT. For those transitioning back to the UK, there is an opportunity to take advantage of the generous four-year foreign income and gains (FIG) regime.
“The increase in additional stamp duty will further weaken the landlord/buy-to-let investment market and support investment into other traditional investment vehicles. It is likely that we will see Scotland and Wales follow with increases to their stamp duties.”
Sam Dewes, Private Client Partner at HW Fisher said:
“The Chancellor has announced significant restrictions to Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief. To the extent that an individual’s combined value of their business or agricultural assets exceed £1m, Inheritance Tax (IHT) will be charged at 20%.
“Previously these reliefs meant that businesses and farms could often be passed down a generation without any IHT. The Chancellor saw these reliefs as ripe for abuse. However, they protect the UK’s numerous business owners and farmers from having to sell up to pay for the tax. As such, this change could see tax motivated lifetime giving or exits, when this may not be the best outcome for the business.
“Certain AIM listed stocks can also qualify for Business Property Relief. The Chancellor has announced a blanket 20% IHT rate on these shares where again they used to be IHT free.”
Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, said:
“Labour’s recent confirmation of their plan to impose VAT on private school fees and remove charitable business rates relief for private schools marks a significant shift in the education funding landscape. Starting from January 2025, private school fees will incur a 20% VAT charge, with business rates relief set to end by April 2025.
“From a financial planning perspective, this change introduces new challenges for families relying on private education. Adding VAT could significantly increase school fees, with the average cost for a day pupil likely to rise by around £3,100 per year. For many parents, this added cost could make private education financially unfeasible, potentially leading to an influx of students moving from private to state schools. This shift could place additional pressure on the state system, which may struggle to accommodate the increase in student numbers in certain areas.
“Our calculations found that a couple would need to earn at least £102,000 a year to be able to send two children to a private day school, when fees go up 20 per cent in January. The calculations assumed that two parents earning £51,000 a year each would be left with a total of £76,500 after tax and a 5 per cent pension contribution, which would allow them to pay £43,350 a year in private day school fees; spend £15,100 a year on their mortgage; and about £18,000 on other living costs such as groceries, eating out and holidays. Many parents will, however, have higher mortgage costs.
“Parents would need to earn £208,000 between them to pay the £102,000 average annual cost of sending two children to boarding school. This was 80 per cent higher than the £116,000 they would have needed 14 years ago. A sole earner would need a salary of £245,000 to send two children to boarding school and cover costs. They would need more because they would lose more of their income to tax.
“For families committed to private education, wealth transfer planning becomes even more relevant. While Labour’s policy may inadvertently encourage some families to explore gifting allowances to cover these increased fees, the wider impact is that it raises the cost of education considerably. For high-net-worth families, planning how to manage these new educational expenses without incurring additional tax liabilities will be critical.“
Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, comments on the retention of the freeze in income tax thresholds until 2028:
“The Chancellor has held the previous government’s freeze on income tax thresholds until 2028 but has signalled she will then ‘Let it Go’ to rise in line with inflation, as happened before 2022. This freeze, often referred to as a stealth tax, means that the thresholds for paying basic and higher rates of income tax will remain unchanged at their 2022 levels, rather than the previous convention of increasing each year in line with inflation. When people get a pay rise, they can move from below to above a threshold, leading them to pay a higher rate of income tax ‘by stealth’.
“According to analysis by the OBR, the current freeze will see millions more people starting to pay income tax or paying at a higher rate – between 2022-23 and 2028-29, this set of threshold freezes means nearly 4 million additional individuals will be expected to pay income tax, 3 million more will have moved to the higher rate, and 400,000 more onto the additional rate1.
“For those moving into the higher rate tax bracket, one thing to consider is whether you can afford to pay the extra over the higher rate threshold as a pension contribution. Doing so will mean you benefit from a higher rate of pensions tax relief at 40%.
“Another group at risk of being affected in future are pensioners on the full new state pension but no other income. From April 2025, the full new state pension has been confirmed as £11,975.60 per year. But with the threshold for paying income tax frozen at £12,570 even some small future increases will see them cross that threshold and face paying an income tax bill. It may be that the tax authorities will waive very small amounts. However, it’s far from certain that the taxman won’t come calling.”
Nick Wright, tax director at Jerroms Miller Specialist Tax, said:
“Following months of speculation about the potential scrapping of BADR (business asset disposal relief), the decision to keep it is certainly an anticlimax, but it will undoubtedly be welcomed by many. We will see increases in the rate from April 2025 to 14% and a further increase from April 2026 to 18% (matching the BADR rate to the new basic CGT rate).
“I expect we will still see business owners looking to take advantage of the current 10% rate over the next 5 months where possible. However, with higher BADR rates we may see an increase in the use of Employee Ownership Trusts, as the legislation allows shares to be sold completely tax free into a Trust for the benefit of all employees provided certain conditions are met.
“Keeping BADR provides a significant financial incentive for investment and business growth, which is positive for ongoing entrepreneurship, and the growth of the economy. Although some critics would suggest that a tax relief for companies at the beginning of their lifecycle would be preferable.”
Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, comments on the changes to pension pots left on death brought within the Inheritance Tax regime:
“The decision to bring ‘inherited’ pension pots left on death within the Inheritance Tax regime is a major change which may impact on retirement planning. For many individuals, their pension can be one of their most – if not the most – valuable asset they own. Adding pensions to estates could substantially increase the number of estates which become subject to inheritance tax. Extending the current IHT thresholds to 2030 adds to this issue.
“While everyone hopes to live many years into retirement, not all do so. Those who die early in retirement are more likely to leave a substantial pension pot which could now be brought within the IHT regime. But taking too much out of their pension too early risks running out of money later in life. While the Government has set out its intent, we hope there will now be full consultation around the detailed approach, and which avoids unintended changes in saver behaviour.”
Görkem Barron at Lubbock Fine Wealth Management, the wealth management arm of Lubbock Fine, said:
“Even though a rise in CGT was widely flagged – an eight-point increase for basic rate taxpayers is far higher than most expected. It’s also very surprising that the CGT rise isn’t shared across asset classes – with CGT on property sales unchanged. This will be welcome news for Buy to Let landlords who were braced for an increase.”
“Such a large increase in CGT will impact private investors – it disincentivises investment in shares. There’s a real danger that this will erode share ownership culture in the UK. There’s a particular risk that shares geared towards capital growth – especially in the UK tech sector – will be hit hardest. UK smaller tech stocks benefit enormously from retail investment – and the Chancellor has now made investing in tech far less attractive.”
Shamil Gohil, fixed income portfolio manager at Fidelity International, said:
“The gilt market has given back all of its pre-budget morning gains post this afternoon’s speech. While the Chancellor seems to have struck the right balance between higher tax hikes, higher spending and borrowing to invest in the economy, there are question marks around the fiscal headroom, which looks quite tight, both on the net financial debt rule and current budget surplus, even after easing the rules – overspend is certainly higher than the market expected. It helps that she has the backing of the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) on growth forecasts, however, it remains to be seen if the Labour government can credibly deliver on their plans, and execution risks remain high.
“In terms of implications for the Bank of England (BoE), the higher minimum wage is potentially inflationary but the government has committed to a 2% inflation target, which should be reassuring. Investment spending should address the supply side of the economy, and therefore limit the impact on inflation. As an aside, higher taxes could be punitive for the labour market / consumer demand and thus negative for growth. In terms of gilt issuance remit, which is what matters for yields, approximately £20bn more of issuance pencilled in, skewed to the long end, which was not expected and leading to some curve steepening. Overall, I think gilts can continue to perform here and reverse some of their cross-market underperformance, especially as the focus shifts to the US election and associated fiscal expansion there.”
Hannah Dart, Of Counsel at Mishcon de Reya, said:
“International individuals in the UK will be pleased that, at long last, further details on the proposed abolition of the ‘non-dom’ regime have been published, including draft legislation, so that they may plan their tax affairs with certainty. That said, with 103 pages of draft legislation to digest, there is a lot of detail to work through.
“An important concession from the previous announcements is a softening of the 10-year ‘tail’ of inheritance tax exposure which it was originally proposed would apply to all long-term residents. For many of our international clients, such a lengthy period of ongoing exposure to worldwide inheritance tax after ceasing UK residence was a deal-breaker when deciding whether to remain in the UK or not, so we expect this change will be welcomed by them.”