The story goes that the Stones moved to France in April 1971 mainly due to tax reasons. From then on they couldn't spend in the UK more than 90 days a year. This I've read in many chronicles and books about the band. What's the issue in the following years until now? I really haven't followed the whole matter. Has this been dicussed already in this forum?

As far as I'm aware, Mick, Ronnie and Charlie are careful not to exceed 90 days in the UK.

The only one it doesn't affect is Keith, as he holds permenant residency in the United States

Quote
Kirk
The story goes that the Stones moved to France in April 1971 mainly due to tax reasons.

pretty much exclusively. It was a common thing in the early 70's, with an upper tax threshold at that time of 83% (and a 'supertax' of 98% for very high earners)

Quote
Big Al
As far as I'm aware, Mick, Ronnie and Charlie are careful not to exceed 90 days in the UK.

The only one it doesn't affect is Keith, as he holds permenant residency in the United States

It affects all, including Keith. Everyone with a British passport has to pay tax if you spend more than 90 days on English grounds. Keith has to pay tax in the US if he works more than (I believe) 3 months in the US. This is a reason why a tour is never longer than 3 months in a row, the rehearsels are in Canada etc., all to avoid a tax claim.

Mathijs

Keith probably hasn't spent more than 90 days in the UK since he upped sticks and legged it for France.

He reportedly didn't venture back to Dartford until the 1980's!

btw, you can be a British Citizen and not hold a UK Passport



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-08 13:08 by Big Al.

Interesting input. Thank you all. As far as I know, if you become a tax exile as a US citizen yoy'll end up losing US nationality. That's not true however for UK citizens. But it's true when it comes to trying to avoid all the inheritance taxes for your offspring etc. Would the Stones put their British nationality at stake?

Quote
Kirk
Would the Stones put their British nationality at stake?

Absolutely not

The Stones are all UK Citizens by birth. The only way they would 'loose' their citizenship, would be if they were to personally renounce it - something that just doesn't happen anymore. For instance, there were times when some nations did not recognise dual-citizenship and in order for someone, to say, become a citizen of the States, they'd have to renounce their current one. The United Stares now recognises dual-citizenship.

Some prior discussion here:

[www.iorr.org]

I think Mick (in particular) and to some extent Keith would do ANYTHING to reduce their tax bill.
What I mean is, I doubt that "being British" is such a big deal to either of them.
Keith DID visit th UK many times in the 70's....he got busted, had car acidents etc. remember! If he didn't visit Dartford, it must have been because there was no
reason for him to (though I thought his Mother and his daughter Angela lived there?). He certainly spent time at Redlands... the Babara Charrone book devotes a chapter on his "condition"there pre the 1977 Toronto bust.
Charlie came back to the UK in 1977, Bill in 1982. Both I would assume are closer to paying a "normal" tax rate than would be as pure exiles. Charlie sepnds a lot of time in Devon and London which must mean he exceeds 90 days per year.
Not sure about Mick, these days.
Of course they benefit from the Dutch set-up, off shore trusts etc. However, such is the financial turmoil around at present, that these safe havens may no longer be as safe as they used to be.
So what do Mick and Robrert Mugabe have both in common?
Answer: Lots of moolah in Swiss banks.
Oh, and both have been knighted (I think)

Being 'tax exiles' and actually holding British Citizenship are two separate issues.

You do not have to reside in the UK to be eligible for a British passport. Since December 1982, you could be born in Mongolia and still have a claim to British Citizenship, as it now goes through the parents.

Whether they are particularly patriotic or not, they cannot change their nationality status to being 'non-British'

Keith kept his home in Cheyne Walk for a few years after the Stones moved to France.

Mick seems to be in the UK a lot in recent years. I would certainly imagine he spends more than 90 days a year here. Keith would barely spend more than a few weeks in the year in the UK - mostly in the summer

Quote
Gazza
Keith kept his home in Cheyne Walk for a few years after the Stones moved to France.

Mick seems to be in the UK a lot in recent years. I would certainly imagine he spends more than 90 days a year here. Keith would barely spend more than a few weeks in the year in the UK - mostly in the summer

Yep - and all of this does not change their eligibility for a British Citizenship!

Edith Grove thanks for the relevant link.

Big Al, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, they just ignore your "non-US" citizenship while you are under US consul.

Gazza, its 90 consecutive days- not 90 days total.

OLDKR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-03-08 18:33 by oldkr.

Quote
oldkr
Big Al, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, they just ignore your "non-US" citizenship while you are under US consul.

Gazza, its 90 consecutive days- not 90 days total.

OLDKR

Ok, perhaps. I meet plenty in my line of work who hold both UK and US passports. We recognise other citizenships, however.

Whatever their individual residency status is they pay a fraction in taxes compared to us mortals.
Perfectly legal, of course.
Klein may have been bright, but he never A) Arranged their tax affairs properly and Thought that by not paying tax, they (and he) could somehow get away with it.
There was no reason to be broke at the end of the 60's, despite the high rates of tax at the time.
Macca, Cliff Richard - plenty of high earners never went into tax exile.
Bill used to compalin that Stones Inc spent as much on attorneys and acountants who looked after the various affairs as he drew out in royalties.

Old KR that's a big change to the tax laws for ex-pats - are you sure? It always was 90 days total and I'm not aware that it's changed

Quote
oldkr
Big Al, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, they just ignore your "non-US" citizenship while you are under US consul.

Gazza, its 90 consecutive days- not 90 days total.

OLDKR

Quote
Stargroves
Old KR that's a big change to the tax laws for ex-pats - are you sure? It always was 90 days total and I'm not aware that it's changed

Quote
oldkr
Big Al, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, they just ignore your "non-US" citizenship while you are under US consul.

Gazza, its 90 consecutive days- not 90 days total.

OLDKR

It's still 90 days total - not consecutive. However, over the years the Revenue have had some interesting ways of calculating the days which have certainly benefitted Mick, in particular, 'living' as he does in nearby France. The day you travel to and from the UK don't count (or didn't for a period) even if you spend the night (inward travel) here. I suspect that explains why those of us who get the Evening Standard see photos of him in London practically every week, despite his non-resident status.
My understanding is that Charlie, in non-touring (therefore for him relatively low grossing) years IS resident in the UK and therefore pays tax here, but in touring years sticks to his 90 days - to the extent that after Keith's coconut tree incident he had to wander round Europe for months. Ronnie appears to be resident here all the time. Keith remains domiciled here as well as a UK citizen and therefore has to stick to the 90 day rule.

Actually, Ronnie's residence is in Ireland. He rents a home in London and is looking for a new home in LA.

Quote
Addicted
Actually, Ronnie's residence is in Ireland. He rents a home in London and is looking for a new home in LA.

Renting/owning is immaterial to the IR. It's your presence in the jurisdiction, logged by immigration, which counts. Ronnie has been in London well over three months of recent times!

He's been in LA a lot of the time... According to friends of mine who have spent time with him.

Well, Ronnie's stay at The Priory was ? 6 weeks (last summer) and well documented!
He was flat hunting in London (I think looking at a converetd warehouse)as well as looking for a place in LA. so he's keeping busy and out of mischief.
I wonder if any of them ever vote in the national elections?
Can't really imagine where Keith stands on political issues- he seems to be pretty silent on such matters.

Quote
Lady Jayne

Quote
Stargroves
Old KR that's a big change to the tax laws for ex-pats - are you sure? It always was 90 days total and I'm not aware that it's changed

Quote
oldkr
Big Al, the US does not recognize dual citizenship, they just ignore your "non-US" citizenship while you are under US consul.

Gazza, its 90 consecutive days- not 90 days total.

OLDKR

It's still 90 days total - not consecutive. However, over the years the Revenue have had some interesting ways of calculating the days which have certainly benefitted Mick, in particular, 'living' as he does in nearby France. The day you travel to and from the UK don't count (or didn't for a period) even if you spend the night (inward travel) here.

As of January 1st, 2009 the law changed: travel days ARE counted and added to the total of days.

Mathijs

Which is why I used the past tense! And said 'over the years' as the IR have chopped and changed the rules several times. Individual tax offices still, it is rumoured, use the old ones, and there are some pretty obvious so-called tax exiles (naming no names) who clearly spend more than 90 days doing business in the UK.

Many tax exiles here in France, most of them live on the Swiss side of the border.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Kirk
The story goes that the Stones moved to France in April 1971 mainly due to tax reasons.

pretty much exclusively. It was a common thing in the early 70's, with an upper tax threshold at that time of 83% (and a 'supertax' of 98% for very high earners)

Still amazes me that there was ever a 98% 'supertax'- what joker thought that one up! How is that ever fair?! 'Well done on earning that £1Million-we will take £980,000 of it- here's £20,000 for your efforts!'

Perhaps because 1 M£ was considered a HUGE sum of money.
Remember those were the 70's when people a bit of common sense. Now we are brainwashed into thinking Bill Gates *deserves* his billions

Poor guys, having to count the days at their age, and if they miscount – pop, a tax assessment of several million drops in the mailbox.

And on top of that: think of the hassle of having to keep apart all the different keys of the houses they own, not mentioning the ones of their cars!

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"