Hi TJ:
Rapacious is very apt per the article. It seems the ruling ignores the 183 days rule that is in their own tax codes.
The UK a few years ago shortened their "days in the country rule" from 6 months to 90 days and when that wasn't enough then they changed their definition of a non-resident in much the same way as N.Y. did.
Except from the Times of London
However, guidance from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in April indicated that non-residents may have to pay full UK tax if their lifestyles suggest they still have strong associations with Britain — such as membership of a UK gentleman’s or sports club — even if they meet the 90-day test.
Full article at timesonline.co.uk
Being a member of a club in the UK, as well as sending your children to boarding school or, owning property, can all be used to make you liable for taxes, per that article.
So yes, I agree, "it as Necessity, who is the mother of invention" is as true today as when Plato said it 2,400 years ago and governments will find ways to broaden the snare to meet the taxman's needs.
Of course, it does play into your theme that real assets that are movable are not easily taxed. It also plays into the desirability of acquiring assets in areas of little or no tax. H.K., Singapore, Bahamas come to mind. Also, there are 7 States in the USA with no State tax. Some like Florida, and Nevada will benefit greatly from the N.Y. exodus. One can have a "holiday home" in Florida or Nevada with no fear and at the moment, they can be had for 1998 prices. |
