Lord Sugar tried to avoid £186m tax payment as a non-UK resident
The peer didn’t realise that being in the Lords automatically made him based in Britain
Lord Sugar tried to declare himself a non-UK resident for tax purposes in a move that would have allowed him to avoid a £186 million payment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
The billionaire peer intended to pay no UK tax on one of the largest dividends in corporate history, a £390 million award he drew from his company in the 2021-22 tax year.
A joint investigation by The Sunday Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that he tried to argue he was, in effect, not based in Britain at the time.
Sugar, 76, argued he qualified for non-residency — meaning a person who does not live in Britain and spends no more than 90 days here in a year. He had spent months in Australia hosting its version of Celebrity Apprentice.
Sugar wanted the authorities to “disregard” the income earned from Amshold Group, the UK holding company for his property assets and other business ventures, including those formed with winners of his hit BBC reality TV show The Apprentice.
However, he was required to pay the taxman the entire £186 million bill. Sugar had not realised that, as a member of the House of Lords, he was automatically resident in the UK. It is understood that shortly after learning of his predicament Sugar said he would have quit the House of Lords altogether had he known it stopped him claiming non-residency.
He took an unexplained leave of absence from the Lords between January and June last year — around the time HMRC would have reviewed his status — but the law makes no exception for those who temporarily leave the chamber.
Denise Coates, the Bet365 founder who paid herself a salary of £469 million in 2020, and Philip Green, who received £460 million in 2005. The reasons for the level of the 2021 payment to Sugar are not known.
By declaring himself a non-resident, he would have been liable to pay tax on the award in another jurisdiction, probably Australia, where, in 2021, he relaunched that country’s Celebrity Apprentice.
It is thought that the law that prevented him from assuming the status is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which passed in 2010. David Cameron, who was then opposition leader, had been dogged by controversy about non-dom peers such as Lord Ashcroft, the former Conservative Party treasurer, who were influencing British laws without paying full taxes here.
The law states that any MP or peer is automatically “resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for the whole of that tax year” for certain forms of tax.
When it was introduced, peers were given a three-month grace period in which to leave the chamber. Five, including Margaret Thatcher’s former adviser Lord McAlpine and the architect Lord Foster, stepped down. Ashcroft claimed he had dropped his non-dom status, although it has since been reported he did the opposite.
It is unknown why Sugar took his six-month break from the chamber lasting until mid-June last year. He denied it was related to his tax status. Bloch initially blamed Covid. He also claimed Sugar “rightly or wrongly” believed that those who failed to attend for half a year without going on formal leave lose their status as members. There is no such rule.
His lordship should of ended the day his UK residency did
Quite funny if he’s failed to rip the rest of us off due to his own self inflated sense of superiority. This should be seen and treated as serious benefits fraud.
3 comments
https://archive.ph/AXsac
Lord Sugar tried to avoid £186m tax payment as a non-UK resident
The peer didn’t realise that being in the Lords automatically made him based in Britain
Lord Sugar tried to declare himself a non-UK resident for tax purposes in a move that would have allowed him to avoid a £186 million payment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
The billionaire peer intended to pay no UK tax on one of the largest dividends in corporate history, a £390 million award he drew from his company in the 2021-22 tax year.
A joint investigation by The Sunday Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals that he tried to argue he was, in effect, not based in Britain at the time.
Sugar, 76, argued he qualified for non-residency — meaning a person who does not live in Britain and spends no more than 90 days here in a year. He had spent months in Australia hosting its version of Celebrity Apprentice.
Sugar wanted the authorities to “disregard” the income earned from Amshold Group, the UK holding company for his property assets and other business ventures, including those formed with winners of his hit BBC reality TV show The Apprentice.
However, he was required to pay the taxman the entire £186 million bill. Sugar had not realised that, as a member of the House of Lords, he was automatically resident in the UK. It is understood that shortly after learning of his predicament Sugar said he would have quit the House of Lords altogether had he known it stopped him claiming non-residency.
He took an unexplained leave of absence from the Lords between January and June last year — around the time HMRC would have reviewed his status — but the law makes no exception for those who temporarily leave the chamber.
Denise Coates, the Bet365 founder who paid herself a salary of £469 million in 2020, and Philip Green, who received £460 million in 2005. The reasons for the level of the 2021 payment to Sugar are not known.
By declaring himself a non-resident, he would have been liable to pay tax on the award in another jurisdiction, probably Australia, where, in 2021, he relaunched that country’s Celebrity Apprentice.
It is thought that the law that prevented him from assuming the status is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which passed in 2010. David Cameron, who was then opposition leader, had been dogged by controversy about non-dom peers such as Lord Ashcroft, the former Conservative Party treasurer, who were influencing British laws without paying full taxes here.
The law states that any MP or peer is automatically “resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for the whole of that tax year” for certain forms of tax.
When it was introduced, peers were given a three-month grace period in which to leave the chamber. Five, including Margaret Thatcher’s former adviser Lord McAlpine and the architect Lord Foster, stepped down. Ashcroft claimed he had dropped his non-dom status, although it has since been reported he did the opposite.
It is unknown why Sugar took his six-month break from the chamber lasting until mid-June last year. He denied it was related to his tax status. Bloch initially blamed Covid. He also claimed Sugar “rightly or wrongly” believed that those who failed to attend for half a year without going on formal leave lose their status as members. There is no such rule.
His lordship should of ended the day his UK residency did
Quite funny if he’s failed to rip the rest of us off due to his own self inflated sense of superiority. This should be seen and treated as serious benefits fraud.