The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
16
1240/5(9210)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER
BY DEPUTY S.Y. MÉZEC OF ST. HELIER ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 2nd FEBRUARY 2016
Question
Further to the Minister for Treasury and Resources answer to written question 9161, tabled on 19th January 2016, can the Chief Minister advise members if an individual's social contribution to the Island be considered a factor as to whether a person is allowed to maintain their status as a High Value Resident? What grounds are there for the re-consideration of a High Value Resident's tax status? Would negative behaviour, such as the incitement of racial hatred or boycotting of local businesses, be included?
Answer
As outlined by the Minister for Treasury and Resources in answer to written question 9161, tabled on 19th January 2016, a High Value Resident (HVR), awarded Entitled status under Regulation 2(1) (e) of the Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) (Jersey) Regulations 2013, is expected to make an annual minimum income tax contribution of £125,000, as well as paying £5,000 for their registration card.
Each time their registration card is presented (e.g. when moving home or employment) the Population Office will verify whether the Entitled status remains valid, with particular reference to tax contribution.
Wider social considerations are examined at the time of granting 2(1) (e) status, by undertaking background checks, working with a range of agencies, including Jersey Financial Services Commission, and considering any reputational impacts on the Island.
Once a person has moved to the Island, relocating themselves and generally their families, having established a home and life in the Island, it is difficult to see a circumstance, other than in extremis, where the status would not be maintained. Such an extreme scenario could include material harm to Islanders, but would not take into account how or where a resident chooses to spend their money.