
EXCLUSIVE I'm a millionaire reality TV star and moved to the UK to buy a castle. But after three years, Rachel Reeves' non-dom tax raid is forcing us to leave - Labour's made an astronomical error
Britain risks sending a signal that it 'doesn't want the wealthy', a Canadian multimillionaire entrepreneur and reality TV star has warned - after packing her bags and fleeing the UK following the abolition of the non-dom status.
Dr Ann Kaplan Mulholland - who has a purported net worth of £500million - has attacked 'Reckless' Rachel Reeves over the 'astronomical error' of trying to extract more tax from the ultra-wealthy who are domiciled abroad for tax purposes.
Instead of remaining in Britain and being forced to pay UK tax on their foreign income under a new tax regime, millionaires and billionaires are thought to be fleeing abroad, taking their spending and investing power with them after Labour pushed ahead with a proposal first tabled by Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt.
Real Housewives star Ann and her husband Stephen, a former plastic surgeon, claimed non-dom status for three years, during which they bought a medieval castle and invested a purported £25m to transform it into a luxury wedding venue.
They intend to keep Lympne Castle in Kent, where around 100 people are employed, but plans for future British ventures including a new credit finance business have gone up in smoke along with their tax exemptions.
Speaking to MailOnline from her Las Vegas penthouse, Ann said the decision to leave the UK had been motivated 'purely' by the end of the regime alongside changes to inheritance tax (IHT) that would have sapped millions from her children's fortune.
She said of the change: 'It doesn't make any sense. It's not that we're not willing to pay taxes: we do pay taxes in the UK, we employ over 100 people.
'We bring clean capital to the UK, we've invested in businesses in the UK, we pay tax in the UK. But it's like they don't really want the wealthy in the UK, which I think is a big error.
'There's an opportunity for 'Reckless' Reeves, as I call her, to try to save this.'
She estimates her estate would have been liable for a bill running into hundreds of millions of pounds if she had remained in the UK for more than half of the next 20-years - the point at which non-doms have to pay IHT.
And the requirement after a short amnesty period to pay tax on all earnings would have 'demolished' her other interests abroad.
Stephen also owns a manufacturing plant employing 3,000 people overseas - the tax bill on which would have been substantive.
'We have businesses we've built from scratch that we pay tax on in other countries, we own multiple properties,' she said.
'Our children wouldn't be protected by trusts and they would be subject to exorbitant inheritance tax It makes no sense to give the Government all of that money.'
Late last year, she mulled over writing to King Charles III seeking permission to create her own nation state in the grounds of the castle, so she could escape the non-dom clampdown. She ditched it when she realised it was an impossible ask.
Instead, she and Stephen plan to move to Italy's swanky fashion capital Milan by next year - following in the footsteps of Aston Villa owner Nassef Sawiris, who left London earlier this year.
The European country has an attractive non-dom regime where the super-wealthy are charged a flat annual rate of 200,000 EUR (£171,500) plus 25,000 EUR (£21,400) per family member in order to shield their foreign assets.
In the UK, 74,000 people claimed non-dom status as of 2022-23, and were liable for £8.9bn of income tax and national insurance.
Another 6,800 were 'deemed domiciled', having spent 15 of the 20 previous years living in the UK - making them liable to pay tax on foreign income.
The medieval Lympne Castle in Kent, which Ann and Stephen acquired for £5.5million and have since sunk millions into to reopen it as a wedding venue and hotel
The OBR estimates that the number of non-doms could fall by 12 per cent this year, and the number of 'deemed doms' will fall by a quarter. And there are already signs Britain is hemorrhaging its wealthy population.
A report from New World Wealth suggested some 11,300 dollar millionaires left London in the last year - joining Moscow as one of only two top 50 cities beloved by the rich to have recorded a net dip in wealthy residents in the last decade.
Ann argues that if the UK brought in an Italy-style regime, those 74,000 non-doms would bring in a hypothetical £14bn a year in flat taxes.
What does the end of the non-dom regime mean?
The non-dom regime has its roots in the laws that created income tax in 1799 - first drafted to fund Britain's fight in the Napoleonic Wars.
Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger taxed UK properties and land, as well as income from British trading - but exempted wealthy aristocrats from being taxed on their properties elsewhere in the British Empire.
Since then, the scheme has evolved to give attractive tax status to the super wealthy that want to live in Britain while protecting their assets abroad.
Under the old non-dom regime, non-UK-domiciled residents would pay £30,000 a year to shield foreign income from HMRC.
This applied to those living in the UK for seven out of the previous nine years, after which the charge doubled to £60,000 for those living in the UK for 12 of the previous 14 years.
The rules were then changed in 2017 to create 'deemed domiciled' status for those who had lived in the UK for 15 of the previous 20 years - forcing them to pay UK tax on their global earnings.
Labour has scrapped these statuses, and instead introduced a residency-based scheme that gives the wealthy three years to bring foreign income into the UK at a low tax rate.
There will be a four year period in which they do not pay any tax on overseas earnings - after which all earnings will be taxed.
Estates will also be liable for inheritance tax, including any wealth held in offshore trusts.
'I don't know why the Government hasn't chosen a path like that,' Ann says.
'But for us, it's easy. We'll leave.
'We're not here to save the country. My concern is that this is an astronomical error for the UK Government to make.
'I would love to hear from Rachel Reeves where she expects to make that £13billion, because we're all leaving. They don't want us.
'They just say, you know: 'Goodbye, don't slam the door on the way out.''
The Treasury estimates that the changes to the non-dom regime will bring in £12.7bn in the next five years - a figure the Office of Budget Responsibility has warned is 'very' uncertain and could be shaken by the mass exodus of the rich and powerful.
Others have thrown out bigger, scarier numbers: neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute has suggested the abolition of non-dom status will cost Britain £111bn by 2035. The Treasury has rejected this suggestion as 'incorrect'.
Among those reported to have left the UK ahead of the new tax year are steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal - net worth, £14.9bn, per the Sunday Times Rich List - and Frederic de Mevius, a member of the founding families of brewery giant AB InBev.
'The projections Rachel Reeves has are probably based on not expecting non-doms to leave - I don't think she expected that exodus,' Ann added.
'She expected us to stay and pay tax on our worldwide income but there is a reason why, for over 200 years, people have come to the UK: it has a preferable tax structure for very wealthy people to live here, invest here and pay taxes here.
'But their businesses, while they're still operating their businesses, are not subject to a double tax (in the UK as well as the country they are based in).
'There are many countries that recognise this and they want to attract wealthy people. Countries that really want to prosper should attract the wealthy.
'We could go to Switzerland, we could go to Dubai... Italy rolled out the red carpet.'
Ann and her husband attracted widespread media attention when they snapped up crumbling Lympne Castle in Kent for a steal at £5.5million in 2023 after the last of their children flew the nest.
The price tag was snipped amid concerns over the huge amount of investment needed to bring it up to scratch - a brief on which she was more than able to deliver.
She has since invested around £25million in revitalising the castle and opening a restaurant, the Naughty Dog, on site.
She says she now employs around 100 people on the site, and has filmed a new reality series currently airing in the US that follows the renovation journey, entitled Queen of the Castle.
'I felt so at home in the UK: I joined the church, joined the community, I play Scrabble with people - we love living here,' Ann continued.
With wealth comes spending and Ann spends in the UK: she invests in charities, invests in businesses, and splashes out on luxury goods and top restaurants, all of which incur taxes.
The one thing she hasn't bought, however, is a flash car - because she can't bear the idea of driving on the left.
'This is money that we have spent, that we have paid taxes on,' she says. 'We're not dodging anything.
'But many people that live in England do not have manufacturing plants that many of us millionaires and billionaires have worldwide. They don't have the assets to be concerned about because they are from here.
'If they built a company in another country they would likely do the same thing and take measures to protect themselves being double-taxed.
'We do pay our fair share of taxes. But why pay it on worldwide income? That does not make sense, and we do pay our fair share of taxes, and, I'm suggesting, have us do what the other countries are doing, pay 200,000 a year plus invest in infrastructure.'
And while she's a reality TV star, there is a business brain behind her success: she started loan firm iFinance in 1996 and sold it in 2022 after growing it into one of the country's biggest lenders.
She boasts a doctorate in finance as well as an MBA and other industry qualifications.
That hasn't stopped her from being targeted with hate online: recent interviews have blasted her looks, calling her a 'ghoul' and 'plastic'.
The attacks don't bother her. What does bother her is having to leave the UK to avoid 'demolishing' her businesses - as she has grown fond of her new home.
'I would do anything to stay but not demolish my businesses globally at the same time. I love it here, and I'm part of a community.
'I love my life in England. It's a beautiful country - who wouldn't love it there?
'It was a big decision to move to the UK. We could have gone anywhere but we chose the UK, and we chose to invest in it and make it our home, and part of that choice was because of the non-dom regime.
'But the government is not listening, or are not recognising the impact this is going to have on the economy.'
The Treasury insists the end of the non-dom scheme will not send the super-rich packing.
'Our tax system is fair and progressive, and keeps the UK an attractive place to live while ensuring everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their taxes here,' a spokesperson said.
'The UK's main capital gains tax rate is lower than any other G7 European country – including Italy, France and Germany – and our new residence-based regime is simpler and more attractive to new arrivals than the non-dom regime it replaces.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
John Lewis slashes perks for credit card holders
John Lewis is slashing perks for its credit card holders – meaning shoppers will need to spend more to reap their rewards. Points earned on purchases using the credit card convert into gift vouchers to spend in John Lewis and Waitrose. Each point equates to 1p, but from the beginning of August customers will only earn a point for every £10 they spend – instead of £4. The less generous perks will mean customers will need to spend more to receive their vouchers in the post. The rewards for spending in the group's own stores will remain unchanged at five points for every £4 spent. That means if you spend £100 in John Lewis or Waitrose you will get £1.25 in points. The company also announced that although there will be cuts to points collected elsewhere customers will get triple points in John Lewis department stores and online in August over the next three years. A John Lewis Money spokesperson said: 'Our rewards are being updated to help maintain our market-leading reward for spending at John Lewis and Waitrose, where customers earn 1.25 per cent back on every pound spent. "Spending on purchases made elsewhere will earn 0.1 per cent from 1st August. 'These changes enable us to invest in the rewards that are most valued by our customers - alongside a new bonus to help customers earn additional points throughout August.' The retailer said there were 'many other advantages' to its card and it was 'adding more for you all the time'. These included double-points promotions, competitions and special offers from its partners. The reduced point system for spending in other stores is in line with other popular cards offered by supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Tesco. It's also not the first time John Lewis has cut reduced the offers on its cards. In 2020, the retailer halved the number of points shoppers could gain from elsewhere from one point per £2 spent to one every £4.


Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. Identity crisis The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue.


Sky News
14 minutes ago
- Sky News
Ashley's Frasers explores bid for ailing Revolution Beauty
Mike Ashley, the high street billionaire, is exploring a cut-price takeover bid for struggling Revolution Beauty – a move that would stoke animosity between him and rival London-listed retailer Debenhams. Sky News has learnt that Frasers Group, which owns retailers ranging from House of Fraser to Evans Cycles, has approached Revolution Beauty about a potential offer for the company. Retail industry sources said this weekend that Frasers was considering whether to bid but was not certain to do so. Revolution Beauty, which sells branded cosmetics, put itself up for sale last month as it warned investors that it was evaluating options to establish "a more robust capital structure with additional capital to invest into the company". It said it had received a takeover approach from a third party - thought to be a reference to a bidder other than Frasers Group - and invited other suitors to contact its advisers at Panmure Liberum, the investment bank. To facilitate the sale process, Revolution Beauty has parachuted in Iain McDonald, an experienced City figure whose directorships include a seat on the board of Debenhams Group, as chairman. Debenhams holds a large minority stake in Revolution Beauty, while Frasers is a big shareholder in Debenhams and blocked the change of its legal name from Boohoo earlier this year by voting against the plan. Revolution Beauty has had a torrid run on the London stock market, and now has a market capitalisation of barely £20m. Its stock has collapsed by over 70% in the last 12 months alone. The company has at various points been embroiled in probes relating to its accounting and a multimillion pound settlement with its founder, Adam Minto. In January, it reached a settlement with Chrysalis Investments, its former shareholder, after it made a series of allegations against the company. Revolution, which positions itself as a mass market beauty range, is sold through thousands of outlets including Superdrug stores in the UK. It built a strong following among younger consumers by forging collaborations with media properties including the ITV dating show Love Island. Frasers' interest in acquiring Revolution Beauty would reflect its growing interest in expanding beyond pure retailing in recent years. Under chief executive Michael Murray, it has also built stakes in companies such as THG, the owner of beauty brands such as LookFantastic. Because the auction of Revolution Beauty is taking place through a formal sale process, the identity of prospective bidders does not have to be disclosed in the usual way. It was unclear on Saturday whether Frasers intends to make a statement confirming its interest to the London stock market next week. On Friday, shares in Frasers closed at 728.5p, giving it a market value of £3.3bn. Any offer for Revolution Beauty is thought to be unlikely to ascribe a significant premium to its current valuation.