Lib Dems oppose 'non-dom' Ron Sandler as chairman of Lloyds

by Stephen Tall on July 21, 2009

So the Telegraph reports:

Ron Sandler should not be eligible for the job of chairman of Lloyds Banking Group because he is non-domiciled for tax purposes, the Liberal Democrats have declared. …

“The chairman of a nationalised, or part-nationalised, bank should not be a non-dom,” Lord Oakeshott, Lib Dem Treasury spokesman said. “Ron Sandler should not become chairman of Lloyds.”

The Lib Dems opposed the appointment at Northern Rock of Mr Sandler, a former boss of the Lloyds of London insurance market. He was initially paid £90,000 a month as executive chairman but his salary fell to £350,000 after appointing a chief executive and moving to non-executive. At Lloyds he would expect to be paid about £600,000. …

UKFI, the body that manages the taxpayer’s stakes in the banks, is unlikely to object to Mr Sandler over his non-dom status. The Government appears to be unconcerned about non-doms despite attempting a tax clampdown on them two years ago. Northern Rock’s former finance director Ann Godbehere was also a non-dom.

Is Lord Oakeshott right to demand the next Lloyds chairman should be domiciled and paying tax within the UK? Or should the sole criterion be who is best for the job regardless of their tax status? Over to you…

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

No comments

It’s symbolic of the moral bankruptcy of the Labour Party and the Labour Government that they can no longer see this issue clearly. Very sad.

by Martin Land on July 21, 2009 at 3:13 pm. Reply #

If they could manage it I expect the whole cabinet and tory front bench would be non-doms.

by simonsez on July 21, 2009 at 3:42 pm. Reply #

Simonez is right but would it not be better if they Non-res as well.

by Roger Shade on July 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm. Reply #

Surely this is a non-issue? Imagine we were going to pay £100k gross, with the govt getting c. £40k back in income tax. Then we discover he is non-dom’d, so we reduce the gross pay to £60k, effectively in lieu of the tax that he would have paid. Sorted. Next problem?

by tim leunig on July 21, 2009 at 11:24 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.