Most of us here know that prior to the making of Exile, the Stones relocated to France in order to escape a heavy tax burden in the UK, or at least that is the official reason.
Before I say more, it is my intention for this thread to provide a better understanding of this time in Stones history. Let us not permit this discussion to develop into political debate as it relates to taxes.
Since my knowledge of international taxes and finance is not at a very high level, I find it difficult to understand how the Stones could simply move to another country and escape their obligations. It seems to me that any country that taxes it's citizens would want to collect regardless of where those citizens earned their income.
Was it actually that simple, or could there have been other legal problems necessitating their move?

There's so many wierd laws concerning taxes.
...makes me think about that big cruise-ship, sailing around with empty apartments, owned by billionaires. They "live" on that ship, and save a fortune on taxes, as the ship sails at the international sea...where no country can claim taxes from them.

Mick was following the bikini babes to the south of France - and the rest of the Stones came along. Nothing taxing about that.

Not so, Edith Grove. I believe that UK tax-exempt status kicks in if you spend fewer than a certain number of days in the country (now about 180 - I don't know what it was at that time). There are plenty of business people who live outside the UK but fly in every week from Europe, say, for a few days' work and then leave again. Then there are double-taxation treaties between countries, which I don't know anything about, but basically it means you won't be liable to pay tax in both of two countries which have signed such a treaty between them if you're a citizen of one and a resident of the other.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-14 00:22 by Beast.

>> Was it actually that simple, or could there have been other legal problems necessitating their move? <<

when you think about the logistics of transplanting a whole band plus their families, finances and organization
to another country, i don't know if "simple" is the right word -
but yeah, my understanding is that it was indeed the tax issue that instigated it.
being t'd off at the British government for other reasons (hassles, busts, etc) no doubt gave them a bit more adrenaline
in making the decision, but i don't see any reason to imagine that there were any hushed-up legal situations behind it.

i don't know beans about the UK tax system at the time, or the details of the Klein situation,
so i hope someone else will be able to say more, but since i'm an ex-pat i do know a *little* about this sort of thing:
countries indeed do not try to collect anywhere near the same amount of tax from citizens who live Elsewhere,
so by becoming residents of another country, the Stones' income wasn't subject to the hugely high UK tax rate
(which at that time was something like 98% [sic] in the Stones' tax bracket); and at the same time
they weren't actually receiving more of their earnings than Klein felt like doling out to them,
which wasn't much. it's probably not that they weren't taxed at all when they left,
or that the back taxes that Klein had failed to pay were waived, but the move meant
they could actually have some income beyond what they owed, for a change.

in According to the Rolling Stones there's an essay by Prince Rupert Lowenstein,
who was the one who advised them to make this move, and he explains a bit about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-14 01:31 by with sssoul.

Hi Edith Grove

It's not down to where you earn your income, but whether you are resident in the coubtry during that tax year or not. If you are living abroad you're still a UK citizen, but as long as you haven't spent more than 90 days (It used to be 90, may have changed) in the UK, you don't have to declare your income for taxation.

Generally you pay tax in the country that you are resident in at the time. I don't know what the French taxation rates were in the 70s, but it is possible that they didn't spend enough days in France to be taxed there either... Their advisors may have had them resident in another country altogether for tax purposes.

For just an ordinary person, a lot of Brits worked in Saudi Arabia and similar countries in the 70s/ early 80s and paid a tiny amount of tax. They mostly chose to pay a National Insurance contribution in the UK although not resident, which meant they could still get an old age pension from the state and their National Health Service treatment when they came back. Somehow I don't think this was an issue for the Stones...

Without starting a political debate, the taxation in the UK in the 70s was something silly like 98% of income, once you got over a certain level of income. There may indeed be other reasons for their Exile, but the one given is a valid one. Anyone got any theories as to what it might be?

Thanks for the education everyone! Evidently, the laws have changed much since the early seventies. Does not Mick make his domicile in Richmond?

And Richard from Canada, I think the bikini babes tend to follow Mick rather than vice versa!

85% taxation should be enough of an explaination for anyone!

Richard from Canada Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick was following the bikini babes to the south
> of France - and the rest of the Stones came along.
> Nothing taxing about that.


Are you sure it wasn't Bill who was following them?

Keith gave a great interview in Vanity Fair a few years back. He was relating all of his resedences from his office in his Conneticate (Spelling?) house. He mentioned his NY appartment his son lived in, his Jamaca get away and a house in England his exwife lived in. He quallified that he let her live in it because of the tax thing, he could not sell it and if he set foot on the property he could then possibly be arrested for past tax issues. I'm guessing it is some sort of lean on the proerty.

>> Does not Mick make his domicile in Richmond? <<

i know he owns property there - all of them own property in the UK -
but that doesn't mean it's his/their residence for tax purposes.
i think i read somewhere that Charlie and Bill finally decided to be UK residents;
i know Keith isn't a UK resident; i have no idea about Ronnie or Mick,
but if i had to, i think i'd guess that Ronnie is and Mick isn't.

>> he could not sell it and if he set foot on the property he could then possibly be arrested for past tax issues <<

that's a bizarre statement! he sets foot on the property pretty regularly.
and i really doubt any of the Stones have any past tax issues on their trails these days -
what would be the point?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-15 21:40 by with sssoul.

I have a hard time dredging up any sympathy for the stones on this point. The whole "exile" thing seems a little silly and overblown, the resulting album aside. True Adventures of the Rich and Famous... the only humane point for me is their finding out how badly Klein had screwed them.

Des Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith gave a great interview in Vanity Fair a few
> years back. He was relating all of his resedences
> from his office in his Conneticate (Spelling?)
> house. He mentioned his NY appartment his son
> lived in, his Jamaca get away and a house in
> England his exwife lived in. He quallified that he
> let her live in it because of the tax thing, he
> could not sell it and if he set foot on the
> property he could then possibly be arrested for
> past tax issues. I'm guessing it is some sort of
> lean on the proerty.

who's his "ex-wife"? he never married anita, right?

>> have a hard time dredging up any sympathy for the Stones on this point. <<

well, have they ever asked for any? the term "tax exile" isn't their invention;
and i don't recall them boo-hooing over it in public.
unlike George (love & light!) they didn't even write a tax-complaint song
(unless that shriek at the start of Child of the Moon counts :E).
the title of the album was a pretty veiled reference, unless you know about the situation,
and even so it's just the facts, not a hand-wringing-victim deal.

getting ripped off that brutally is another story, of course -
but i don't recall them boo-hooing about that in public either.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-01-15 21:44 by with sssoul.

I was thinking more of the second-hand mythologizers and hagiographers more than the band itself, though I'm sure one can find comments by keith about the period that tie the situation into the whole outlaw-rebel pose. mick's explanations, that I recall, are more unapologetic. Actually, bill might have gotten a little boo-hooey recently.

Really, this would hardly seem like a subject to leap to their defense on. But it's good to hear another perspective.

I remember now that Bill spoke for a moment about this on the 25x5 video.

I'm going to have to see if my VCR still works!

If I remember correctly, Ronnie is an Irish resident. Voodoo Lounge was recorded in Dublin because it's close to where Ronnie lives.

As for Mick, I don't know. Posse sur Cisse maybe, or maybe somebody must be resident of the Antilles?

'cause I'm the Taxman...yeah the Taxmaaaannn...

Yes Ronnie's residence is in Ireland.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."