IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Boris Johnson]

20 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

I'm not sure that is correct. It's the DTA of 1955 as amended in 2018 which is in force. Article 18 covers Government service.  The key is where you are ordinarily resident. My interpreration of that is, if a person lives (is ordinarily resident) in the UK, in this instance the other territory, and is paid by the IOM Government, then they are not exmpt from taxation in the UK.

You will pay tax here, and where you are resident. You will get a credit for the tax you have paid here to avoid double taxation.

It's a complicated and wordy document, and as I said, that's just my understanding of the text. 

Pulls up a chair,

Nothing more interesting than Accountants arguing 😁

Edited March 21, 2021 by Boris Johnson

[CallMeCurious]

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

‘Stand by to repel borders!’

(Etc.)

The locals are revolting...

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Happier diner said:

To be honest I don't know but the way DrH explained it is that you have tested positive at days 1, 7 and 13 it's not really feasible that you could be infected/infectious for so long (beyond 21). I believe the PCR test can pick up dead and non viable virus cells that you body is getting rid of. She said that you couldn't keep people isolated for weeks and weeks. 

Not saying I know this but this is what the experts say. 

I mentioned these historic/old cases yesterday and they do have certain characteristics that define them.  New Zealand has been good at diagnosing these (as has Jersey) and there's an interesting article from last year covering the various reasons and so on.

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Am I reading it correctly that it is only those with symptoms who are tested even though the rest of the household are self-isolating?  If that is the case, then everyone in the household is free after 21 days, even though one of the household didn't contract it until say, day 10, meaning they are out at day 11 of their infection. 

Or even day 4 if the symptomatic tests negative on day 13.  

Please tell me the whole household is tested on day 1, 7 and 13. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Newbie said:

I am struggling to understand what you want. On the one hand you are critical of the Government, Public Health and DHSC, saying that none of them have a clue. But on the other hand, when there is a suggestion that they might involve someone who does have a clue, that is a waste of taxpayers money, and an exercise in shifting blame.

The trouble is that both might be true.  The Government might indeed have no clue, but then employ consultants who don't either.  Indeed the first might produce the second, especially given that there is a history of employing consultants not to find out the truth or what would be best to do for the Island, but to tell them what they want to hear.  And they then ignore any bits that don't suit them.

3 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

What makes you think the Isle of Man has more expertise that the UK who themselves are using the same "consultants"?

Well having less expertise than the UK government has shown might even be hard for our own.  But any examination of the UK's use of consultants over the last year (Private Eye is informative) will show that it consists mainly of giving many billions of pounds to rich, well-connected mates of theirs for absolutely no result whatsoever - track and trace being the main but not the only example.

[Shake me up Judy]

1 hour ago, Hmmmm said:

Listened to the James Davies interview re vaccination with Hetty and Magson  and thought they all spoke well without the foreboding presence of HQ.  It is almost as though they pick up on his demeanour and this inhibits them.  Ashford becomes so obsequious to Quayle when there really is no justification for such deference.  

Whilst I don't agree with Magson's off island status, she is clearly knowledgeable and is the CEO of the Hospital and answered questions without the Ashford bluster - she  was content to provide a demographic overview of the patients in hospital without churning out  GDPR dressed up with a multitude of verbosity that Ashford employs.  All in all, given her status, she should be utilised more for the briefings and give DA a time out.  Quayle should also pick and choose his appearances and have the confidence to place his trust in others to deliver the information. Alas it is the fact both are reluctant to  step back and others are content to let them plod on, that leads to the malaise in the briefings.

in fairness to JD he came over well in his questioning.

They were given the questions well-beforehand and so gave prepared answers. There was nothing spontaneous about this. It was a presentation, not an interview. 

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Or even day 4 if the symptomatic tests negative on day 13.  

Please tell me the whole household is tested on day 1, 7 and 13. 

I believe so if there has been a positive test. If no positive test in the house but if just high risk contact I believe you are free after your 1 and 7 day negatives if no one in house tests positive at any stage or has symptoms.

[madmanxpilot]

15 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

Pulls up a chair,

Nothing more interesting that Accountants arguing 😁

I’m no accountant, but have spent many years of my working life dealing with DTAs because of where my work took me🤣

You can put your chair away, coz this will be my last comment on the matter!

To go back to this case, by way of an example:

Let’s say a person ordinarily resident in the UK earns 200K from IOM and is taxed solely in the IOM on those earnings. With personal allowances etc, they end up paying say 35K in tax here through ITIP.

They have to declare all of this income to HMRC who calculate that if that money had been earned in the UK the tax bill would have been say 60K.

In calculating tax liability, HMRC, to avoid double taxation, will deduct the 35K tax already paid to IOM from the 60K UK tax bill and issue the individual with a 25K UK tax demand.

Thats how it worked for me anyhow.

[Shake me up Judy]

20 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

Pulls up a chair,

Nothing more interesting than Accountants arguing 😁

Yes, what chance have the rest of us got when even this simple question can't be answered. Might as well bang your head on your keyboard as get a straight answer on tax/pensions/law etc.

[Newbie]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The trouble is that both might be true.  The Government might indeed have no clue, but then employ consultants who don't either.  Indeed the first might produce the second, especially given that there is a history of employing consultants not to find out the truth or what would be best to do for the Island, but to tell them what they want to hear.  And they then ignore any bits that don't suit them.

Fair comment, but we need an exit strategy, and that has to be either prepared in-house, or it has to be outsourced. There seems no point in objecting to all potential avenues. What does that leave you with?

[Banker]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Fair comment, but we need an exit strategy, and that has to be either prepared in-house, or it has to be outsourced. There seems no point in objecting to all potential avenues. What does that leave you with?

Just copy & paste Guernsey or Jersey strategy, quicker & save a lot of money!

[StrangeBrew]

6 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

I’m no accountant, but have spent many years of my working life dealing with DTAs because of where my work took me🤣

You can put your chair away, coz this will be my last comment on the matter!

To go back to this case, by way of an example:

Let’s say a person ordinarily resident in the UK earns 200K from IOM and is taxed solely in the IOM on those earnings. With personal allowances etc, they end up paying say 35K in tax here through ITIP.

They have to declare all of this income to HMRC who calculate that if that money had been earned in the UK the tax bill would have been say 60K.

In calculating tax liability, HMRC, to avoid double taxation, will deduct the 35K tax already paid to IOM from the 60K UK tax bill and issue the individual with a 25K UK tax demand.

Thats how it worked for me anyhow.

That’s correct, to a point, but there are some instances in which the treaty sets out where the residents of each country should be taxed in respect of certain sources of income.

I would think that Article 14, which relates to income from employment would need to be considered, before you then consider Article 18. Under article 14, a resident of the UK who is not also resident in the IOM would only be taxed in respect of work carried out in the IOM (and vice versa). So if she isn’t actually working here, it may be that she should only be paying UK tax.

I would be interested to know why piebaps thinks the DTA is simply irrelevant. Surely you need to look at it carefully to consider how it might apply?

[TerryFuchwit]

16 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

I’m no accountant, but have spent many years of my working life dealing with DTAs because of where my work took me🤣

You can put your chair away, coz this will be my last comment on the matter!

To go back to this case, by way of an example:

Let’s say a person ordinarily resident in the UK earns 200K from IOM and is taxed solely in the IOM on those earnings. With personal allowances etc, they end up paying say 35K in tax here through ITIP.

They have to declare all of this income to HMRC who calculate that if that money had been earned in the UK the tax bill would have been say 60K.

In calculating tax liability, HMRC, to avoid double taxation, will deduct the 35K tax already paid to IOM from the 60K UK tax bill and issue the individual with a 25K UK tax demand.

Thats how it worked for me anyhow.

That's how it works.  Not sure why anyone would question this.

[manxchester]

52 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Or even day 4 if the symptomatic tests negative on day 13.  

Please tell me the whole household is tested on day 1, 7 and 13. 

In lockdown 2 the whole house definitely wasn’t tested. My wife got tested on day 3 (I think) and then day 14, both negative and no one else in the house got tested. Not sure if they’ve changed things in this lockdown but probably not..

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, manxchester said:

In lockdown 2 the whole house definitely wasn’t tested. My wife got tested on day 3 (I think) and then day 14, both negative and no one else in the house got tested. Not sure if they’ve changed things in this lockdown but probably not..

I think you might be right with that. I'm only speaking from experience too.