Responses to the MAC Consultation on the Tier 1 Investor Route
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Responses to the MAC consultation on the Tier 1 Investor route November 2018 Contents Chartered Certified Accountants 4 Dr McKibbin 6 Fragomens 8 Tier 1 Investor Route 19 PWC 21 Mishcon 49 Laura Devine Solicitors 55 Westminster Wealth Management 65 Tier 1 Investor Route 83 CS Global Partners 95 Henderson Rowe 104 Henley Partners 106 Newland Chase 113 Individual Response 120 Individual Response 2 122 Individual Response 3 125 Individual Response 4 126 Individual Response 5 127 Individual Response 6 130 Individual Response 7 133 Individual Response 8 134 Individual Response 9 135 Individual Response 10 136 Individual Response 11 144 Kingsley Napley 147 Knightsbridge Wealth 171 Lawrence Graham 173 London and Capital 175 London and Capital 2 177 Magrath LLP 181 Octopus Investments 187 Roger Gherson Solicitors 1 192 Roger Gherson Solicitors 2 193 Sam Jacobs 196 Business Innovation and skills and UK Trade and Investment Error! Bookmark not defined. WMM 198 Speechly Bircham 216 Invest UK 220 Lewis Silkin 234 Vestra Wealth 237 Vestra Wealth 1 244 Vestra Wealth 2 248 Vestra Wealth 3 250 Vestra Wealth 4 277 Chartered Certified Accountants NB/P00-P/13200a 11th November 2013 Migration Advisory Committee 2nd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF By e-mail ([email protected]) Dear Sir/Madam Re: The economic impact of the Tier 1 (Investor) route We are a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants with significant international expertise. We have been specialising in providing accounting, taxation and other services to foreign nationals and UK companies owned by foreign nationals. We are advising individuals on UK income tax on arrival to the UK as well as various issues in relation to their UK tax position as they become a "UK resident non-domicile" when they enter the UK border under Tier 1 (Investor) category Visa arrangements. We would like to express our view in relation to the Government consultation on the economic impact of the Tier 1 (Investor) route and comment on some of the points listed in the consultation paper. A considerable amount of external funds are brought into the country with significant benefits to the banking sector which eventually flows into the economy of the country but also direct investment into share capital or loan capital in active and trading UK registered companies. Extending the limit of investment from the lower limit available presently set at £1,000,000 will in our view deter the number of investors who are considering the UK as their future residence who may decide to consider alternative destinations for their future settlement. 1 | P a g e Apart from the direct initial investment capital which is effectively frozen for a number of years (2- 5), the indirect investments in property acquisition, household expense, children’s education, financial, legal and professional and associated benefits will surely be adversely affected. All these investors will find their way in perhaps other EU member states who will benefit from the influx of the investments and will offer the new immigrants full access to the UK via the rear door. A better way of considering the arrangements to the UK Investor Category applicants would be, in our view, to divert either the whole or a major proportion of any initial investment directly to small and medium size businesses in the UK. This would mean the funds would be directly injected into existing businesses which will boost economy, create jobs and see the UK overcoming the present recession successfully. By exercising this approach the enormous funds imported in the UK will have a significant uplift of the economy instantly as opposed to the trickling of these funds through the banking system which is prolonged as long as possible for the banks’ own interests. For these reasons we believe that changes in the investment routes rather than increasing the limits available to applicants for the UK Investment Category would benefit the country. Yours sincerely, AVIPA LLP 2 | P a g e Dr McKibbin Dr Malcolm McKibbin BSc MBA DPhil CEng FICE Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service First Minister and Head of the Office of the First Minister & Deputy First Minister Deputy First Minister CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE REVIEW ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE TIER 1 (INVESTOR) ROUTE Thank you for your letter of 15 October 2013 on behalf of the Migration Advisory Committee regarding the review on the economic impact of the Tier 1 (Investor) route. We have investigated whether we have any quantitative information on the numbers of Tier 1 investors that have located in Northern Ireland. We contacted the Home Office in London, and were advised that the Belfast Public Enquiry Office (PEO) does not deal with Tier 1 investor applications, so did not hold any information on this. Belfast PEO do deal with Tier 1 general applications but do not hold information on where Tier 1 General applicants are resident. The PEO deal with a lot of applications from Great Britain so the amount processed there would not be a true reflection on the numbers resident in Northern Ireland. Home Office did a search for Tier 1 Investors with Leave to Remain and there have been none made with a postcode prefix that places it in Northern Ireland. Invest NI is not aware of any recently supported investments that have involved Tier 1 investors. As regards the threshold set in the early 1 990s, while El million still appears reasonably significant in investment terms, based on the jobs that may be created as a result of this, uplifting the figure for inflation would ensure that the cash return would generate the same purchasing power now as 20 years ago. This suggests that the threshold should be at least 60% higher now (using the GDP deflator), On a rough basis then this would suggest that the threshold could be doubled to ensure that the cash return from the investment is the same in real terms. I hope you find this helpful, Yours sincerely MALCOLM MCKIBBIN ' INVESTORS Bronze IN PEOPLE Fragomens Call for Evidence on the Economic impact of the Tier 1 (Investor) route Submission to Migration Advisory Committee November 2013 Fragomen, Del Reye Bernsen & Loewy, LLP Fragomen Global LLP www.fragomen.com FRAGOMEN Professor David Metcalf CBE Migration Advisory Committee 2 Marsham Street London SWIP 4DF 3 December 2013 Dear David Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Migration Advisory Committee's (MAC) latest call for evidence on the economic impact of the Tier (Investor) route. I write on behalf of Fragomen LLP. Fragomen is the world's largest immigration law firm. We have over 4 offices in 17 countries and provide immigration services across over 170 jurisdictions. Our worldwide private client practice, which I lead, provides immigration advice and assistance to high net worth individuals on residency and citizenship options across the globe. We have taken care to provide the MAC with a thorough policy response that responds to the questions raised and addresses other issues that we believe the committee should be cognisant of. Fundamentally, in preparing the response we have had to think about what the government is seeking to achieve in this area, The UK's Tier 1 (Investor) visa should not be viewed in isolation. There is a global market for residency and citizenship by investment programmes and while the UK is a big payer we cannot be complacent. In the last twelve months new residency programmes have been created in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Antigua. In Malta a citizenship programme has been created and may make EU passports available in return for a 650,000 Euro donation. We are not suggesting the UK should sell itself cheaply. UK residence and UK citizenship are valuable commodities, But the government does have a decision to make — do we have an investor visa because we want to attract high net worth migrants, or do we have it for the sake of it being there. Inferences that the Elm threshold is too low might suggest the latter is true, i.e. if we have to have the visa we will make it expensive. We have assumed that the UK wants to attract high net worth people and have provided policy recommendations that would increase our competitiveness in the market and increase the economic benefits to the country without selling the country shoft. Our response then forms seven annexes: The general policy context at Annex A explains how a high net worth migrant interacts with the system and the decisions they take. We provide a number of recommendations that fall outside of the scope of this call for evidence but are nevertheless helpful. The policy paper at Annex B responds to the questions posed in your call for evidence, This paper also contains other policy suggestions and recommendations. Annex C contains proposals for increasing certainty by specifying investment vehicles. Ideas for nudging Tier 1 (Investor) migrants towards more socially useful investment vehicles are at Annex D. Annex E draws together the recommendations we have made in each part of this Annex. We hope that this paper serves your purposes and would be very happy to meet with you or the secretariat to discuss our Ideas further. I would also like to express our gratitude to [REDACTED] for the time they have spent with Fragomen discussing the Investor category. It is encouraging to see how keen they are to understand how the visa works in practice, beyond the higher level structure and economic benefits. Yours sincerely Nadine Goldfoot Partner TABLE OF CONTENTS Annex A General Policy Content and Commentary Annex B — Response to Migration Advisory Committee Questions Annex C — Increasing Certainty and preventing Financial Abuse.