Opposition parties have stated they will not run in the by-elections on Friday, removing hundreds of protesters by truck. Tax lawyers also rejected Murty’s claim that her status as a non-resident was a consequence of her Indian citizenship, noting that he had chosen to adopt her. Condemning what he said was “breathtaking hypocrisy”, Sir Keir Starmer sought answers on “what programs she could use to reduce her own tax”, a demand echoed by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. . Ministers tried to retaliate, condemning what one called “malicious attacks” on a private individual, while another accused Labor of believing that “spouses are just an extension of their spouses”. Boris Johnson asked questions about the conflict, saying: “I think it’s very important in politics, if you can, to try to keep people’s families away from it.” Labor sent 12 detailed questions to Mr Sunak, demanding that he clarify how much tax his wife evaded – and whether the chancellor personally won. Mr Sunak was asked to comment on whether Murty was using the “remittance base” to claim homelessness and avoid British income tax abroad, as suggested by experts. That would confirm her status as an “active choice,” Labor said. In addition, the party asked to know whether it pays tax in India or in a tax haven in order to minimize its bills. The chancellor was also asked to clarify what measures are in place to “ensure [he is] does not participate in the discussions of the Ministry of Finance regarding possible amendments to the rules of the off-site regime “. “As chancellor, it is important that you follow both rules and set an example,” said the letter, which was written by James Murray, a spokesman for the Labor Department. Christine Jardine, a spokeswoman for Lib Dem Treasury, said of Mr Sunak: “It would be a scandal if his household benefited from tax havens abroad.” And Kirsten Oswald, Westminster SNP deputy leader, said: “There are a lot of questions the chancellor has to answer, including exactly how much he and his family have benefited.” Murty, the daughter of an Indian billionaire, owns investments in a number of companies, including a 0.93 stake in technology company Infosys, which is estimated to have paid dividends of around ,6 11.6 million last year. As a non-resident, he could have avoided a tax bill of around 4 4.4 million before any tax liabilities abroad – in exchange for paying an annual fee of 30 30,000 in that country. Murty’s spokeswoman did not dispute that she had chosen the “remittance base”, acknowledging that she was only paying foreign tax on her foreign earnings. The spokeswoman also declined to say whether she has a tax residence in India or is taking advantage of tax havens. The finance ministry said Mr Sunak had declared his wife’s tax status to the cabinet when she became a minister in 2018 and to his current department when he joined it, initially as secretary general, a year later. Two senior Treasury officials, along with an additional official who frequently works with the ministry, said they had not been informed of the chancellor’s potential conflict of interest arising from his family’s use of the off-site tax regime. They said they believed it was directly related to the policy currently being developed on how best to attract foreign talent to the UK and other areas of international taxation. They added that it is also related to international trade policy, in terms of tax advice that is part of professional and financial services. A senior official said that, in their view, “there was good reason to share this information more widely with the leaders of the relevant policy groups”. A second added that they felt “uncomfortable with the consequences” of not being informed of the use of the non-home status by the chancellor’s wife. A spokesman for the finance ministry said: “The chancellor provided a complete list of all relevant interests when he first became a minister in 2018, as required by the ministerial code. The independent adviser for the interests of the ministers confirmed that they are completely satisfied with the steps taken by the chancellor to meet the requirements of the code “.
