1(1)(k) Residents: Referendum (P.130/2011): Comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 6 September 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-TR-2011-0116
Decision Summary Title:	Comments on P130/2011: 1(1)(k) category residents: referendum		Date of Decision Summary:	1 September 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Director – Tax Policy		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title:	Comments on P130/2011: 1(1)(k) category residents: referendum		Date of Written Report:	1 September 2011
Written Report Author:	Director – Tax Policy		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Comments on P130/2011: 1(1)(k) category residents: referendum.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the comments on P130/2011: 1(1)(k) category residents: referendum.
Reason(s) for Decision: To enable the Minister’s comments on P130/2011: 1(1)(k) category residents: referendum to be presented to the States.
Resource Implications: Other than those detailed in the comments there are no further financial or manpower implications.
Action required: Greffier of the States to be requested to present attached comments to the States at the earliest opportunity and prior to debate of P130/2011 at the sitting commencing 12 September 2011.
Signature:		Position: Senator P F C Ozouf Minister for Treasury and Resources
Date Signed:		Date of Decision:

1(1)(k) Residents: Referendum (P.130/2011): Comments of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

COMMENT TO “1(1)(k) RESIDENTS: REFERENDUM” (P. 130/2011)

The Minister for Treasury and Resources opposes this proposition.

The Deputy appears to wish States Members to ask the public to endorse the decision they made less than two months ago when they approved P114 (Income Tax (Prescribed Limit and Rate) (Amendment) (Jersey) Regulations 201-). On that occasion, Members voted emphatically in favour of amending the tax rates applied to individuals who come to Jersey as 1(1)(k) residents in the future.

The Treasury Minister considers that a public referendum should be used for constitutional matters and not for setting tax policy. Jersey’s population has delegated the authority to make decisions on its behalf to the States, and has a reasonable right to expect that their representatives are capable of doing so.

Changes made to the 1(1)(k) regime

The explanations given by the Treasury Minister for making the changes in P114 do not need repeating, but are attached as appendices. As set out in the report to P113, the changes to the tax regime were made in order to boost Jersey’s economy by removing the disincentives for wealthy newcomers to invest in the Island.

The referendum proposed

It is unclear from the wording of the proposition what exactly is intended, and in particular there are some potentially important differences between what is proposed in Parts (a) and (b). However, the Treasury Minister assumes that:

The Deputy does not wish the public to consider the existence of a special tax regime for 1(1)(k)s per se, only the changes introduced in P114/2011 and approved by the States on 22 July 2011. P114 changed the tax rates applied to individuals who come to Jersey as 1(1)(k)s in the future but does not affect the position of 1(1)(k)s who are already in Jersey.

P114 introduced a lower rate of tax for future 1(1)(k)s of 1% on income above £625,000, but the Deputy proposes that the public should be asked to consider whether rates of 1% on income above £650,000 should be abolished. The Treasury Minister assumes that the Deputy meant to refer to incomes above £625,000 and not to £650,000.

Despite proposing in Part (a) that a “flat taxation rate” should apply to all taxpayers, the Deputy is not in fact proposing that the 92% of Jersey residents who pay tax at a rate less than 20% should have their tax rate increased to a flat rate of 20%. It is therefore assumed that the Deputy does not propose abolishing the current system of personal allowances and reliefs.

Financial and manpower implications

The Deputy predicts that abolishing the 1(1)(k) tax regime would result in a significant increase in tax revenues, although the proposition does not in fact suggest that the public should be asked their opinion on the regime in general, just those changes which have recently come into effect.

The reasons why abolishing the 1(1)(k) regime would not lead to a significant increase in tax revenues have been well rehearsed over the years, but in summary:

The very wealthy are highly mobile. Jersey currently struggles to attract the number of new wealthy residents that it wants to. Increasing the tax rates charged on new residents will reduce the number who wish to move here and therefore the tax they pay.

Increasing the rate of tax charged does not automatically mean that tax receipts will increase.

The main purpose for bringing in the changes to the tax regime which the States Members have already approved is to boost economic activity through encouraging more wealthy individuals to choose Jersey as a place to live and bring their business.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources urges Members not to support this proposition.