THE BRIEFING Tax
A MOVING STORY
Henley & Partners’ annual wealth migration report always sets tongues wagging – but do its numbers stand up to scrutiny? Chris Newlands investigates
figures in the way one might expect. The think tank also claims numbers contained within the reports rely too heavily on LinkedIn data to be a reliable reflection of individuals’ tax residencies: ‘Strikingly, the report’s methodology states that its estimates are primarily a measure of where millionaires say they work on social media and not where they live or reside, meaning the report does not track actual, physical migration – contrary to the presenting of the estimates.’ Tax Policy Associates has also questioned
whether it is realistic for just one person to be able to ‘track’ the vast quantities of data that are said to feed into the reports. New World Wealth, based in South Africa, is a one-man band, run by founder and sole employee Andrew Amoils, who puts together the data for numerous Henley & Partners reports. Tax Policy Associates says: ‘A one man firm says it tracks 150,000 fortunes – right down to investments, cash and crypto – and nets off their debt. That simply can’t be done.’ Dan Neidle, founder of the think tank,
JUST HOW MANY WEALTHY PEOPLE are leaving the UK? It has become a much- asked question in recent months as debate has raged over the impact of the abolition of the non-dom regime and the measures brought in to replace it. And one organisation has appeared to answer it more readily than any other, emerging as an authority on the topic in the process. The latest editions of Henley & Partners’ annual wealth migration report say a net 9,500 millionaires leſt the UK in 2024 and project that the final tally for 2025 will be 16,500. The data has been widely cited, including in numerous newspaper articles. Since the start of the year, the Times, for example, has published 15 articles that refer to reports by Henley & Partners or the research firm that carries out the work that underpins its reports, New World Wealth. Headlines include ‘Why a wealth
tax won’t work’ and ‘Why the super-rich are leaving Britain’. However, the methodology and findings of the Henley reports have come under scrutiny. Tax Policy Associates, a respected think tank, went so far as to publish an article that claimed the ‘Henley & Partners reports can’t be trusted... and until an independent audit is carried out should be treated as marketing material, not evidence’. Speaking exclusively to Spear’s, Henley &
Partners and New World Wealth have defended the reports, saying that recent criticisms ‘appear to stem more from the politicisation and misuse of the data’. Tax Policy Associates says it found a number of problems with the report findings. One is that a decision to remove property assets from wealth estimates from 2023 to 2025 did not appear to affect the
told Spear’s: ‘Speaking to people in the private wealth industry – private bankers and advisers – many told us the figures seemed off. I don’t believe there’s any way to produce international tables with that level of detail across countries and cities. The very large and able teams at UBS, Capgemini and Knight Frank [which compile detailed reports about the behaviour of wealthy people] have never come anywhere close to this. Public sources just don’t have the information.’ Others agree. Isaac Delestre, a senior
research economist at the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: ‘There is no high-quality evidence yet available that I know of that allows us to track the movements of high-wealth or high- income individuals.’ Both Henley & Partners and New World
Wealth dispute the accusations. Henley & Partners told Spear’s it has always accepted the figures provided by Amoils in good faith and that it has had no reason to question their legitimacy, adding that the research outcomes have been consistent with trends observed from its own client base. ‘Unfortunately, recent criticisms
appear to stem more from the politicisation and misuse of the data rather than from
ALAMY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
