Layman's Laws

Simple, Relatable and Relevant Legal Digests

recent posts

about

  • UK’s April 26th tax laws…

    The pre-April 26th position (“The Golden Era”)

    Let’s imagine you’re a wealthy Russian oligarch with a savvy lawyer. The year is 2022. You run a lucrative bio-chemicals production company in Eastern Russia, but spend most of your days in West London with your wife and daughter. Through your time spent in the Isles, you’ve scooped up a British passport and residency for you and your family.

    Even if you were a resident, for many legal purposes, your ‘domicile’ status is distinct and pivotal. A ‘domicile’ is a person’s ultimate legal home in which they have the most enduring connection. One’s domicile is usually established at birth, usually following their father’s status (domicile of origin). Alternatively, one can voluntarily choose their domicile, which requires both physical residence in the country, and an intention to reside there indefinitely (animus manendi). Courts can infer the latter through a home purchase, relocating family, will/burial wishes, community ties etc. Persistent residence for 15 of the last 20 years also confers a ‘deemed domicile’ status (ITA 2007 s.835BA). Non-domiciles are residents of the UK without any domicile status.

    If you were deemed a ‘non-domicile’, you could apply for the remittance basis for tax. This means foreign income and gains, such as dividends from your biochemicals company, were taxed in the UK only to the extent that they were remitted to the UK. Per s809L of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007), ‘remitted’ means that the funds were brought to, received or used in the UK, or were used overseas for a UK benefit (e.g. transacting with a Dutch company for a new coffee table for your Belgravia flat). Conversely, any UK-source income and gains (i.e. investments through a UK trading account) were taxed as they arose in the normal way.

    However, if you chose to apply for the remittance basis, you would lose your entitlement to the income tax personal allowance and capital gains tax for the tax year the claim was made (ITA 2007, s809B). Furthermore, if you were a tax resident for the last 7 out of the previous 9 tax years, it would cost you £30,000 to claim the remittance basis per the Remittance Basis Charge (RBC), increasing to £60,000 for an individual with residency of more than 12 years.

    Let’s imagine you’re recouping £5,000,000 from dividends from your company:

    • Without a remittance claim, you’d pay 39.35% tax on both your domestic and foreing income, amounting to a handsome £1,967,500 on your dividends alone.
    • With a remittance claim, as long as you don’t remit the dividend income to the UK, you’d only pay UK-source income. Depending on the length of existing citizenship, you’d pay £0/£30k/£60k for the RBC, a saving of £1.91-£1.97m per tax year.
      • If the foreign dividends are remitted, e.g. £200,000 for UK spending, the remitted portion is taxed at 39.35%, amounting to £78,700, on top of the RBC.

    It’s evident why the previous rules were so desirable for wealthy foreign individuals, with savings of millions of pounds or more. This advantage is exaggerated when accounting for the clandestine use of trusts for tax-benefits, as explored later.

    But then, everything changed on the 6th of April 2025: the ‘Finance Act 2025’ came into effect with stark implications for foreigners bringing their funds into the UK.

    April 6th 2025 changes

    From 6 of April 2025, the non-domicile regime has been abolished and replaced with a new residence-based test, the Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) regime. This means resident non-domiciles will not be able to elect only UK-source income and gains for taxation; all overseas income and gains will be taxed as they arise, albeit with certain caveats. Effectually, this introduces a global tax for all UK residents.

    How this test interacts with individuals depends on the amount of time they’ve been a resident in the UK.

    Individuals who arrive in the UK after being non-resident for at least 10 prior tax years may elect to not be taxed on foreign income and gains under the FIG regime, regardless of whether they are remitted to the UK or not. This is available for the first 4 consecutive years of residence.

    If an individual leaves the UK temporarily during the 4-year period in which they qualify for the FIG regime, they can still make a claim on returning, but only for the balance of that original 4-year window. For example, someone who is UK tax resident in 2025–26, non-UK resident in 2026–27, and then UK tax resident again from 2027–28 onwards may use the FIG regime in 2025–26, 2027–28 and 2028–29; they will not, however, receive a full four tax years of relief.

    Anyone already resident to the UK as at April 6th 2025 for less than 4 years may make a claim under the FIG regime for the balance of the four year period. For example, if Bobby was a UK resident for 3 years on April 6th, he would be able to claim 1 year under the FIG regime.

    If an individual arrives in or leaves the UK midway through a tax year, they may, subject to specific conditions, qualify for split-year treatment, dividing that year into a UK-resident part and a non-UK-resident part. For FIG purposes, any split year counts as a full year of UK residence. Resultantly, the period over which the FIG regime can be used may be less than four complete tax years.

    TLDR: From 6 April 2025, the UK abolishes the non-dom regime and introduces the residence-based Foreign Income & Gains (FIG) regime, under which UK residents are generally taxed on worldwide income and gains as they arise. New arrivals who were non-UK resident for at least the previous 10 tax years can elect to exclude foreign income and gains for their first four consecutive years of UK residence (remittances don’t matter). If you’re already UK-resident on 6 April 2025 but have fewer than four years’ residence, you can claim the remaining balance up to four years. Leaving and returning during the window doesn’t reset the clock—you only keep the unused balance. For FIG purposes, any split year counts as a full UK-resident year, so in practice the relief may cover fewer than four complete tax years.

    How to claim for relief? (i.e. the nitty gritty)

    A claim must be made in the individual’s self-assessment tax return for each tax year in which they wish to use the relief. It must be submitted no later than 31 January in the second tax year following the year to which the claim relates. For example, a claim for 2025–26 must be filed on or before 31 January 2028.

    Claims in respect of foreign income and foreign gains are separate. A taxpayer may claim relief on foreign income, on foreign gains, or on both. Claims are also made on a source-by-source basis, so a taxpayer can claim for some sources of foreign income or gains and not others, which is useful where a claim could affect the tax position of a particular source in another jurisdiction.

    Anyone opting to be taxed under the FIG regime must quantify the foreign income and gains covered by the claim and include those amounts in their self-assessment return. Broadly, from 6 April 2025 all UK-resident individuals will be required to report their worldwide income and gains in their returns. Any foreign income losses or foreign capital losses arising in a tax year for which the individual is claiming under the FIG regime are not deductible.

    Electing into the FIG regime also means forfeiting the income tax personal allowance (£12,570 for 2024–25) and the CGT Annual Exempt Amount (£3,000 for 2024–25). Both allowances are lost regardless of whether the claim is only for foreign income, only for foreign gains, or only for employment income using Overseas Workday Relief. This mirrors the historic remittance-basis rules and may make the regime unattractive for taxpayers with modest foreign income and gains.

    Furthermore, there is no charge for making a FIG claim, distinguishing it from the remittance basis.

    Transitional measures?

    For taxpayers previously qualified for the Remittance Basis, the government has introduced some measures to mitigate the damage caused by the April 6th changes.

    Rebasing

    Firstly, Starting 6 April 2025, individuals who have previously claimed the remittance basis may rebase personally held foreign capital assets to their 5 April 2017 market value.

    “Rebasing” means resetting an asset’s UK CGT base cost to its 5 April 2017 market value so that, on a disposal on or after 6 April 2025, only growth since that date is within UK tax (assuming the qualifying conditions below are met). It sits alongside FIG: gains realised within an individual’s four-year FIG window are exempt in any case (even if remitted), so a rebasing election is not needed for those disposals.

    Rebasing is advisable because it reduces UK CGT exposure on post-FIG disposals (or in any year FIG is not claimed/available), can simplify record-keeping, and may align better with foreign tax calculations, though it should generally be used only where the 5 April 2017 value is at least the original cost.

    To qualify for rebasing relief, all of the following must be satisfied:

    • The individual must not have been UK-domiciled or deemed-domiciled at any time before the 2025–26 tax year.
    • The individual must have claimed the remittance basis in at least one tax year from 2017–18 through 2024–25 (inclusive). Any year in which the individual qualified automatically for the remittance basis does not count.
    • The individual must have owned the asset on 5 April 2017 and must dispose of it on or after 6 April 2025.
    • The asset must have been situated outside the UK throughout 6 March 2024 to 5 April 2025, subject to specified exceptions.

    Care is required when remitting proceeds from disposals made before 6 April 2025. Where foreign income or gains (taxable under the Remittance Basis rules) were used to acquire the asset, bringing the proceeds to the UK can trigger a UK tax charge. The applicable rate will depend on whether the funds fall within the Temporary Repatriation Facility (as explained below).

    Temporary Repatriation Facility

    A Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) will be available to individuals who have previously claimed the remittance basis, allowing them to bring pre-5 April 2025 FIG to the UK after 6 April 2025 at a reduced rate for three tax years. To use the TRF, taxpayers must designate the FIG to which the relief applies in their self-assessment tax return.

    Designations made in 2025–26 and 2026–27 will be taxed at a flat 12%, rising to 15% for designations in 2027–28. The TRF charge is payable on designation, and no further tax is due when the designated FIG is actually remitted; taxpayers therefore may designate amounts they plan to remit in future years, and they do not need to declare remittances of already-designated FIG in those later years.

    Designations may cover FIG invested in overseas assets, so assets need not be sold to benefit from the TRF. Designations may also be made for investments that have previously qualified for Business Investment Relief (BIR). In both cases, no further tax applies to the designated sum if the asset is later sold and the proceeds are remitted to, or retained in, the UK.

    The TRF is also available to UK resident individuals who receive a benefit from an offshore trust structure during the same time period, where the benefit is matched to pre-6 April 2025 FIG. This should mean easier access to trust income and gains which previously may have been subject to punitive tax rates on extraction from trusts.

    Finally, the amount of FIG designated under the TRF must be net of any foreign tax paid. No credit can be claimed for foreign tax against the TRF charge.

    Business Investment Relief

    Business Investment Relief (BIR) lets individuals who claimed the Remittance Basis remit foreign income and gains into the UK without a UK tax charge, as long as the money is used for a qualifying investment.

    From 6 April 2028, one cannot claim BIR on new investments. Existing BIR investments will keep their BIR protection until a potentially chargeable event happens, such as a disposal. Under the current rules, if such an event occurs, you can avoid a taxable remittance by taking offshore the foreign income and gains that were originally invested.

    As noted above, FIG used in qualifying BIR investments can also be designated under the TRF. If designated, no further tax will be due on that amount if the investment is later disposed of or another potentially chargeable event occurs.

    Conclusion

    In short, the “golden era” of remittance-basis planning is over: from 6 April 2025 the UK moves to worldwide taxation under the FIG regime, with only a narrow four-year window for recent or new arrivals and annual claims that forfeit key allowances. Transitional options soften the shift: asset rebasing to 5 April 2017 can reduce future CGT, a time-limited TRF offers discounted taxation on pre-change foreign income and gains, and BIR remains only for existing investments before closing to new ones in 2028. For anyone affected, the task now is disciplined planning, auditing sources of foreign income and gains, modelling the cost of lost allowances, considering TRF designations, and revisiting trust and investment structures, to navigate a system designed to tax UK residents on a global basis.

    It’s evident that such changes are in an effort to bring more wealth held by foreigners to British soil, instead of in offshore accounts. The effect so far? A massive wealth exodus: Henley & Partners projects the UK will lose ~16,500 millionaires in 2025, the biggest outflow globally, with movers carrying ~$91.8bn in investable wealth. It’s evident then that manipulation of tax laws should have close regard to wider socio-economic and political trends, rather than in a foolhardy attempt to strong-arm economic change.

  • The UK’s fixation with online gambling.

    We’ve all experienced it. Sitting down, ready to soak in your favourite sport on TV or YouTube with snacks in hand.

    Suddenly, you’re bombarded with an onslaught of charming ads singing the praises of online sports gambling. They’re relatable, often featuring the Average Joe winning big, and leverage bright colours, comedy and bravado.

    It happens suspiciously often. In a country where the advertising of other addictive substances, like tobacco, are stringently restricted, it’s disconcerting how widespread gambling culture is in advertising. In a 2017 study of 25 live UK football matches, a betting-related advert appeared in 95% of all ad breaks, including pitch-side advertising and sponsorships. Of course, these ads conclude with the proviso ‘Gamble Responsibly.’ Quite some protection, right?

    Maybe not. The growth of the sports betting industry is staggering. Between March 2019 and March 2023, the number of active real-event sports bettors increased by about 26.7%, translating into roughly 1.4 million new active players.

    It’ is’s trite that gambling has and will continue to ruin lives. So, this digest is to explore how it got to this point, what industry players are doing and where we’re heading.

    Are the guards awake?

    Central to regulation is the Gambling Act 2005 (“GA”), which controls all forms of gambling in the UK. Some of the Act’s central aims are ‘ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way‘, and to protect ‘children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling‘ (s.1 GA). This extends to gambling advertisements.

    Section 327 of the GA broadly defines gambling as anything done to ‘encourage people to take advantage of facilities for gambling‘. Regulation of these ads is through a complex hierarchy of bodies and codes.

    For a quick legal rundown:

    1. Section 20 GA establishes an executive, non-departmental Governmental body known as the Gambling Commission (“GC”) responsible for overseeing gambling regulation adherence.
      • Any gambling company seeking to transact with, and advertise to, British consumers must have a licence from the GC.
    2. Section 24 of the GA empowers the GC to issue codes, such as the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”), which gambling companies must comply with to be granted a licence.
    3. Under 5.1.6 of the LCCP, gambling companies must comply with advertising codes administered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), specifically, those from (1) the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code), and (2) the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code).
      • BCAP code: for all adverts on radio and television
      • CAP Code: for non-broadcast adverts, like sales promotions and direct marketing comms
    4. Section 355 GA allows the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation to further the Act’s aims. This power led to laws like the Online Gambling (Advertising) Regulations 2007 (OGAR).

    The important part: whilst these laws and codes regulate the content of these advertisements (e.g. they must be based on fact, no sexual content, not aimed towards under-18s, et cetera), none of them prescribe a limit on the volume or frequency of these adverts.

    How is the industry regulating?

    However, there have been industry-led efforts to regulate advertisement frequency. The Industry Group for Responsible Gambling (IGRG), co-ordinated by the Betting and Gaming Council (BCG), represents major licenced operators in the UK (e.g. Bet365, Paddy Power, Ladbrokes etc.), and focuses on coordinating socially responsible gambling initiatives, including the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising.

    Alongside content guidelines (e.g. 20% of each advert must be devoted to safer gambling messaging), the IGRG introduced the ‘whistle-to-whistle’ ban, preventing gambling ads from airing 5 minutes before kick-off starts to 5 minutes after it finishes. Although the IGRG Code is voluntary, balances exist to ensure compliance: under the LCCP 5.1.8, licensees ‘should follow any relevant industry code of practice on advertising‘, including the aforementioned, to avoid punishment.

    But is this enough? The ban targets specific time windows, but ignores ads on late-night TV or digital platforms. So why hasn’t the government stepped in to cap total ad frequency?

    Sports Industry = Gambling Industry

    Just as betting underpinned the Colosseum’s bloody fights and chariot races in Ancient Rome, the modern sporting industry depends heavily on the payroll of gambling companies.

    In Europe, gambling was the most dominant sponsor sector for eight out of the top ten European football leagues in 2023-24, with deals with 42 unique teams valued at $128 million- almost doubling the next sector. In the UK, gambling companies offer 38% more for sponsorship deals compared to other companies, accounting for 15-30% of annual revenue for clubs generally.

    Sports broadcasters recoup millions in revenue through airing gambling ads. Importantly, broadcasters use this source of revenue to fund million-pound rights deals to sporting leagues, which trickle back to clubs.

    In sum, sports betting plays a crucial role in upholding the live-broadcast sports industry, supporting clubs directly through sponsorship deals, and indirectly through deals with broadcasters and leagues. Therefore, regulators may be reluctant to limit frequency for fear of destabilising a pillar of British culture and past-time.

    Individual efforts to go against the grain by limiting ad frequency has had potentially disastrous results. Sky, who earned £200m a year through gambling advertisements, limited gambling advertisements to one sport per commercial break in 2018, leading to a drop in revenue in 2019 by 18.2%. This suggests that without coordinated or state-led action, such efforts may not be financially viable.

    Industry lobbying

    It’s a tale as old as time. Lobbying is the process in which business and trade associations influence laws and public policy in ways that serve their commercial interests. The gambling sector is one of the UK’s most powerful lobbying groups, cultivating ties with MPs and offering lavish hospitality.

    Government MPs disclosed over £235,000 worth of gifts, hospitality and salary from gambling companies between December 2020 and April 2023, including tickets to Ascot, Euro 2020 matches and Brit Awards. This figure excludes gifts costing under £300, which needn’t be declared. During the Government’s gambling review in 2020, there was a tenfold increase in the amount of gifts and hospitality declared by MPs, suggesting intense lobbying during periods of scrutiny.

    In 2023, Conservative MP Philip Davies personally lobbied ministers to reduce regulations on behalf of a London-based casino. Davis, who is a Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Betting and Gaming, declared £57,000 in hospitality from a flagship gambling holding company, writing multiple letters to lawmakers urging them to give certain casinos preferential terms which remove safeguards for gamblers and increase casino profits. The APPG is a cross-party interest group run by members of the Commons and Lords, involving outside groups to act as a ‘go-between’ between the industry, Parliament and the government.

    Following Phillips’ heavy lobbying, the government’s 2023 white paper proposed only limited reforms to the GA 2005, maintaining privileges for high-net-worth foreign gamblers and rejecting calls for stronger ad controls.

    The CAP and BCAP codes, although enforced by the ASA, are written by representatives of numerous industries, including broadcasters like Sky and ITV, and receive direct input from the gambling industry’s main body, the Betting & Gaming Council (BCG). In a industry-led, self-regulatory environment, the stalwart revenue gambling companies provide to broadcasters opens the door for undue influence and further preferential rules.

    Resultantly, critics point out how industry self-regulation is failing to afford consumers adequate protection, with the vast majority of advertisements aired failing to meet the criteria set by the CAP code.

    ‘It’s Part of the Culture’

    The deluge of gambling adverts is not reducible solely to regulatory gaps. The deep-rooted gambling culture in the UK may play a large role, emboldened by recent global development in liberalised gambling laws.

    Gambling culture has historically played a large part in the British zeitgeist for centuries, possessing a long history, from the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 legalising betting shops, to the National Lottery, world-renowned horse races, and globally dominant online betting firms.

    Since the GA 2005, the tone of gambling advertisements began to shift from informative to relatable, comedic and lifestyle-oriented. In March 2023, 48% of UK adults reported gambling in the past four weeks, reflecting the normalization of gambling in everyday life and paving the way for lax advertising rules.

    International developments poured fuel on the fire. In 2018, the US Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), effectively permitting state governments to legalise sports betting. This development opened a multi-billion dollar market overnight, attracting UK-based operators like Flutter and Bet365 to the US market in return for immense revenue growth.

    Resultantly, this transatlantic relationship fiercely developed UK advertising strategies, offering incentives to consolidate and reinforce gambling’s visibility in the UK market, thus maintaining brand dominance and international competitiveness with the US players’ aggressive marketing tactics.

    With the advent of social media and digital content, British consumers now bear witness to intense gambling marketing across US-led sports, like the UFC, as well as pop-culture icons, like live-streamers and Youtubers. Such normalisation has only emboldened UK-based gambling companies to pour more money into reaching UK consumers. Lacking clear public outcry, lawmakers are not rushing to solve the problem.

    …So what now?

    UK gambling participation is at a historic high. Although reforms have addressed how ads look, they’ve done little about how many we see.

    Whilst the ‘whistle-to-whistle’ ban is a agreeable compromise between gambling companies and their confederates in Parliament, this neglects the multiple marketing channels gambling companies penetrate, whether it be pitch-side, hoardings, shirts, or especially online, where 80% of gambling marketing takes place.

    Regulatory bodies like the APPG are too entangled with industry interests to drive meaningful reform. Some headway is being made through individual efforts: the 20 clubs in the Premier League have voluntarily opted to ban gambling sponsors on the front of match-day shirts, limiting potential exposure.

    However, piecemeal efforts like this are likely insufficient. Gambling companies, on average, pay 38% above the market rate for front-of-shirt sponsorships, cutting out millions in potential revenue for clubs, sullying the economic viability of self-led efforts. Reports point out how front-of-shirt logos account for less than 10% of gambling advertisements seen during matches, with sleeve logos, pitchside branding and sponsorships in full steam.

    With such efforts described as ‘tokenism at best’, it’s clear that a comprehensive, far-reaching legislative reform is needed to make consequential headway in this issue.

    It is unlikely an outright ban for gambling messages in live-broadcast sports will succeed, as is being debated in countries like Brazil, given the firm entrenchment gambling has in politics, business and the public psyche. However, it’s clear that some efforts must be made by Parliament to address the quantity of gambling-related ads on TV and online- a clear one being limiting the amount of ads airable in a given time frame, or in certain time frames on social media.