Could we have stopped Revolut's founder from leaving the UK?

Tax Policy Associates, Dan Neidle

Tax Policy Associates (2025)

TL;DR

Tax Policy Associates analysis estimating £3B+ in foregone UK CGT from Storonsky's move.

Rigorous analysis of whether UK could have retained Storonsky through exit taxes or other mechanisms. Estimates £3B+ in foregone CGT from his move. Demonstrates the policy tension between capturing revenue from mobile capital versus driving it away entirely—the core 'nominal trap' problem.

Key Findings from Associates & Neidle (2025)

  • Storonsky's move could save him more than £3 billion in UK CGT
  • Exit taxes create perverse incentives—accelerating departure rather than preventing it
  • Non-residents are not liable for UK personal income tax (not a loophole, just law)
  • UK lacks effective mechanisms to capture value from founder emigration

Related Mechanisms for Could we have stopped Revolut's founder from leaving the UK?

Tags