After Naturalisation

[ppron747]

three years if married to a British citizen

Or indeed in Civil Partnership with a British Citizen!

Paul, I think it will take a little while to get used to this new possibility

Absolutely, John - but I thik it would take longer than I've got to accustom myself to the notion that a couple in a civil partnership could produce a child that they're both parents of!!!

[lemess]

Another difference - naturalisation is at the discretion of the home secretary but registration cannot be refused if some one qualifies.

As Paul says, some registrations are entitlements, others are discretionary (s3(1) is the main discretionary provision).

Although naturalisation is discretionary, in practice it is not refused if the requirements are met. It does not depend on the whim of the particular civil servant dealing with your case.

well I guess things like "good character" have a subjective element so some human being must have scope to make judgements on these things. How did Mr. al fayed repeatedly fail in his bid to naturalise ?

[Dawie]

How did Mr. al fayed repeatedly fail in his bid to naturalise ?

Well, when the Queen gets involved I guess she can veto anything. Obviously they consider being Muslim and successful a character flaw. And when your son was sleeping with a member of the Royal family that's even worse. I'm afraid there was nothing impartial about Al Fayed's naturlisation rejection.

[John]

I thik it would take longer than I've got to accustom myself to the notion that a couple in a civil partnership could produce a child that they're both parents of!!!

Absolutely .... but adoption by a same-sex couple is now a possibility!

[lemess]

How did Mr. al fayed repeatedly fail in his bid to naturalise ?

Well, when the Queen gets involved I guess she can veto anything. Obviously they consider being Muslim and successful a character flaw. And when your son was sleeping with a member of the Royal family that's even worse. I'm afraid there was nothing impartial about Al Fayed's naturlisation rejection.

Being muslim didn't seem to hurt Abu Hamza's nauralisation application.

Re: Fayed it is indeed strange how someone who does not have a criminal record, has created loads of british jobs and is deemed fit enough to be a resident here is denied citizenship while dodgy characters like Hamza and the 7/21 bomber ( who even had a prison record) seem to sail through the naturalisation process.

[Dawie]

Being muslim didn't seem to hurt Abu Hamza's nauralisation application.

Yes, but he didn't buy a British institution like Harrods. I guess the Queen, the PM and the Home Secretary are still pretty pissed off about that.

[bbdivo]

Being muslim didn't seem to hurt Abu Hamza's nauralisation application.

Yes, but he didn't buy a British institution like Harrods. I guess the Queen, the PM and the Home Secretary are still pretty pissed off about that.

Are you serious? I don't think the Queen, PM and Home Secretary care two ticks who owns Harrods. This is going off topic from the OPs post but if I'm not mistaken Al Fayed was not granted naturalisation because there were some serious tax issues around his case, also if I'm not mistaken he did not meet residency requirements. He still to this date claims to be not domiciled in the UK so that he is not taxed on his earnings overseas. This would bring into question good character and residency requirements, therefore his denial.

[lemess]

Being muslim didn't seem to hurt Abu Hamza's nauralisation application.

Yes, but he didn't buy a British institution like Harrods. I guess the Queen, the PM and the Home Secretary are still pretty pissed off about that.

Are you serious? I don't think the Queen, PM and Home Secretary care two ticks who owns Harrods. This is going off topic from the OPs post but if I'm not mistaken Al Fayed was not granted naturalisation because there were some serious tax issues around his case, also if I'm not mistaken he did not meet residency requirements. He still to this date claims to be not domiciled in the UK so that he is not taxed on his earnings overseas. This would bring into question good character and residency requirements, therefore his denial.

He moved to switzerland after they wouldn't give him citizenship.

There was no reason given for his failing the good character requirement so no one can be sure if it was tax related. Fayed did not have any criminal convictions and mere suspicion shouldn't be grounds for characterising someone's character as "not good". Anyway the fact that a convicted prisoner can get naturalised and go on to bomb London while an industrialist who creates many jobs isn't shows up inconsistencies in the process.

I would argue that allowing someone who is not of 'good character' to have ILR but not citizenship is fairly meaningless. If someone is dodgy you don't want them living in the country surely !

[John]

The decision about Fayed has been tested in the Courts after the suggestion from him that the decision was unreasonable. Fayed lost and therefore is still not a British Citizen.

Now, for tax reasons, he lives in Switzerland most of the time. I think there is a guarantee here ... his days in the UK will be limited to 90 days or less per tax year ..... otherwise he would find it rather expensive!

The Government is continually thinking about the tax law relating to domicile and non-domicile. But every time it thinks it has found a solution to the tax problem, well on further reflection, there seem to be drawbacks to changing tax law in that way.

But it will probably keep looking for a solution to the problem.

[JAJ]

He moved to switzerland after they wouldn't give him citizenship.

I'd be surprised if he gets Swiss citizenship in a hurry. Switzerland has a 12 year residence requirement as a minimum, and cantons and municipalities are free to impose higher requirements.

There was no reason given for his failing the good character requirement so no one can be sure if it was tax related. Fayed did not have any criminal convictions and mere suspicion shouldn't be grounds for characterising someone's character as "not good".

The problems encountered by Mr al-Fayed are not likely to be shared by many ordinary citizens (with a clear criminal record), whose cases are decided by civil servants and not directly by a Home Office minister. A high profile sounds glamorous, but in situations like this can make things more difficult compared to the ordinary person's experience.

[Joseph]

bbdivo said:

He still to this date claims to be not domiciled in the UK so that he is not taxed on his earnings overseas. This would bring into question good character and residency requirements, therefore his denial.

IMHO domicile is independent of citizenship, before and after naturalisation. In other words, it is possible for a non-domiciled foreign person to be naturalised and for a such person to retain his foriegn domicile after naturalisation. The fact that a person states that he intends to remain in the UK does not in itself mean that he is changing his domicile here. As discussed in this string, that intention to remain is not "forever" but "for the forseeable future."

Domicile is a fairly vague concept, and it is not really that easy to change one's domicile. If someone really intends to come to the UK for the rest of his life, he can consider his domicile moved here, but most people are not likely to make such a definitive commitment up front. Otherwise, the general rule is that continuous residency of 17 years in the UK will cause his domicile to be changed involuntarily. If Al Fayad had lived in the UK for that period and tried to claim non-domicile, then that would be a factor against him, but I don't think it was the case.

I believe the main issue against Al Fayad were related to questionable business practices and false statements related to the litigation with the House of Frasier regarding the Harrods takeover. This was followed later on by other misdeeds such as bribing an MP (Hamilton) and slandering the Duke of Edinburgh.

Joseph

[bbdivo]

bbdivo said:

He still to this date claims to be not domiciled in the UK so that he is not taxed on his earnings overseas. This would bring into question good character and residency requirements, therefore his denial.

IMHO domicile is independent of citizenship, before and after naturalisation. In other words, it is possible for a non-domiciled foreign person to be naturalised and for a such person to retain his foriegn domicile after naturalisation. The fact that a person states that he intends to remain in the UK does not in itself mean that he is changing his domicile here. As discussed in this string, that intention to remain is not "forever" but "for the forseeable future."

Domicile is a fairly vague concept, and it is not really that easy to change one's domicile. If someone really intends to come to the UK for the rest of his life, he can consider his domicile moved here, but most people are not likely to make such a definitive commitment up front. Otherwise, the general rule is that continuous residency of 17 years in the UK will cause his domicile to be changed involuntarily. If Al Fayad had lived in the UK for that period and tried to claim non-domicile, then that would be a factor against him, but I don't think it was the case.

I believe the main issue against Al Fayad were related to questionable business practices and false statements related to the litigation with the House of Frasier regarding the Harrods takeover. This was followed later on by other misdeeds such as bribing an MP (Hamilton) and slandering the Duke of Edinburgh.

Joseph

You're quite right, in fact domicile is actually a tax status, it is possible to that your are either domiciled or not domiciled (as well as resident but not ordinarily resident and then resident and ordinarily resident, etc etc)

Althouth its not set in concrete, this is what the IND guidance says:

2.2.4 Information may also come to our attention that the Inland Revenue regards an applicant as domiciled abroad for tax purposes. In such cases, we should request the applicant's permission to contact the Inland Revenue. We should then ask the Inland Revenue to provide us with a copy of the applicant's completed "Domicile Enquiry" questionnaire, which may throw some light on future residence intentions. If permission is not forthcoming the application should be refused.

NB. The replies to the domicile questionnaire should not be given undue weight, and they should not form grounds for refusal if they merely indicate that applicants see their ultimate home as a country other than the UK. (It is not a requirement for naturalisation that applicants intend to make their home permanently in the UK.)

[bbdivo]

Actually that whole page i got that quote from makes interesting reading:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... nex_f.html

it mainly talks about future intentions

[Joseph]

From an income tax standpoint (publication IR20), here is some interesting further reading.

4 Domicile

4.1 Domicile is a general law concept. It is not possible to list all the factors that affect your domicile, but some of the main points are explained in this Chapter.

4.2 Broadly speaking, you are domiciled in the country where you have your permanent home. Domicile is distinct from nationality or residence. You can only have one domicile at any given time.

Domicile of origin

4.3 You normally acquire a domicile of origin from your father when you are born. It need not be the country in which you are born. For example, if you are born in France while your father is working there, but his permanent home is in the UK, your domicile of origin is in the UK.

Domicile of dependency

4.4 Until you have the legal capacity to change it - see paragraph 4.5 - your domicile will follow that of the person on whom you are legally dependent. If the domicile of that person changes, you automatically acquire the same domicile (a domicile of dependency), in place of your domicile of origin.

Domicile of choice

4.5 You have the legal capacity to acquire a new domicile (a domicile of choice) when you reach age 16. To do so, you must broadly leave your current country of domicile and settle in another country. You need to provide strong evidence that you intend to live there permanently or indefinitely. Living in another country for a long time, although an important factor, is not enough in itself to prove you have acquired a new domicile.

Married women

4.6 Before 1974, when you married you automatically acquired your husband's domicile. After marriage this domicile would change at the same time as your husband's domicile changed. If your marriage ended, you kept your husband's domicile until such time as you legally acquired a new domicile.

This rule is modified by the terms of the double taxation agreement between the UK and the USA. A marriage before 1974 between a woman who is a US national and a man domiciled within the UK is deemed to have taken place on 1 January 1974 for the purpose of determining her domicile on or after 6 April 1976 for UK tax purposes.

4.7 From 1 January 1974 your domicile is not necessarily the same as your husband's domicile. It is decided by the same factors as for any other individual who is able to have an independent domicile. If, however, you were married before 1974 and had acquired your husband's domicile (see paragraph 4.6), you retain this after 1 January 1974 until such time as you legally acquire a new domicile.

Overseas electors

4.8 From 6 April 1996 registering and voting as an overseas elector is not normally taken into account as one of the factors for determining whether you are domiciled in the UK, for the purpose of establishing your tax liability here.

Tax treatment of those not domiciled in the UK

4.9 Those who are resident in the UK but not domiciled here receive special tax treatment in respect of income and gains arising outside the UK. For details, see paragraphs 5.12 and 6.2 (income tax) and 8.8 (capital gains tax). We will consider the question of your domicile only where this will affect your current tax liability.

For inheritance tax purposes, see booklet IHT 18 'Inheritance tax. Foreign aspects'.

Joseph

[tt]

bbdivo. I note that IND page you quoted has updated itself to refer to "spouse/civil partner", but hasn't yet cottoned on to the fact that the Inland Revenue is now HM Revenue and Customs

Domicile has most impact when you are talking about inheritance tax when someone dies. Even if that person is a British citizen, if their domicile is not the UK, then inheritance tax will not be payable on certain assets not in the UK at the time of death. Unlike a Biritsh citizen who is domiciled in the UK, who WOULD be so taxed.

Oh, and remember the cricket test?

Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed (he only styles himself Mohamed al-Fayed) was born in Egypt. Remember, he made his money when he married the sister of the international arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who employed him in his import business in Saudi Arabia. Maybe that goes against him (it shouldn't).

However, he was involved in the cash for questions scandal, and more importantly -
. Rowland of Lonrho took the Al-Fayeds to a Department of Trade inquiry (as we know, in 1979 al-Fayed bought the H?tel Ritz Paris and in 1985 he and his brother Ali bought Harrod's for £615m). This inquiry reported in 1990 and stated that the brothers had lied about their background and wealth. The bickering with Rowland continued when he accused them of stealing millions in jewels from his Harrods safe deposit box. Rowland died and al-Fayed settled the dispute with a payment to his widow. Al-Fayed had been arrested during the dispute and sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest in 2002. He lost the case.

So, both Labour and Conservative Home Secs continued to deny Brit citizenship to Mohamed on the grounds that he was not of good character.

Since leaving the UK in 2003, I think he must have given up on the idea of Brit citizenship, and from the Brit point of view, there will be residency gaps now. Anyway, I think he has a UAE passport now, and, by the way, some say he has "moved" from Switzerland to Monaco.

Hey, but because of his status in the UK when he had his children, they are British, I believe (goes directly to the point I made earlier in this post if you have a look - the fact he has children who, I think, are British citizens - was/is irrelevant in his quest for Brit citizenship). However, his second wife was/is Finnish. If he's still married to her - can someone update?- then she can get residence in the UK leading to Brit citizenship, leading to Al-Fayed's eligibility.

Question - do questions of good character - which can lead to refusal of Brit citizenship - apply right across the board - ie even to spouses of British citizens?

[Joseph]

tt
Good background information!

In answer to your question: Yes, the good character requirement still applies to spouses of British citizens.
Joseph

[basis]

Actually that whole page i got that quote from makes interesting reading:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... nex_f.html

it mainly talks about future intentions

After reading the whole page one can see how serious home office is about future uintentions clause. It is rather surprising that still there are no examples of BC being stripped off anyone who had no intentions to stay in the UK. At least they could have made a few example cases to have a deterrent effect on people who dont have any future intention to stay and still apply and take BC.

[ppron747]

Actually that whole page i got that quote from makes interesting reading:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en ... nex_f.html

it mainly talks about future intentions

After reading the whole page one can see how serious home office is about future uintentions clause. It is rather surprising that still there are no examples of BC being stripped off anyone who had no intentions to stay in the UK. At least they could have made a few example cases to have a deterrent effect on people who dont have any future intention to stay and still apply and take BC.

Since they said four years ago that they wouldn't be doing it, I can't quite see how it is surprising that they haven't....

I don't know whether I'm alone in this view, but it seems to me that, barring a change in the law or in HO policy on administering it, we have viewed this subject from every conceivable angle. Could we not move on?

[basis]

Since they said four years ago that they wouldn't be doing it, I can't quite see how it is surprising that they haven't....

I don't know whether I'm alone in this view, but it seems to me that, barring a change in the law or in HO policy on administering it, we have viewed this subject from every conceivable angle. Could we not move on?

Agreed Paul.