This article is more than 7 months old

This article is more than 7 months old

An “archaic” tax law on the island of Jersey in effect deeming that a wife’s income belongs to her husband is being scrapped.

Politicians on the Channel island have backed a proposal that married women should have the same income tax rights – and responsibilities – as their husbands.

It means that wives will always be able to talk to Revenue Jersey on tax matters without the permission of a husband.

The change will also mean that younger partners in same sex marriages and civil partnerships will have equal rights. At the moment, for tax purposes, the younger person is essentially considered the wife and the older the husband.

Susie Pinel, the a Treasury minister on Jersey, said: “This will give equal rights to both spouses and civil partners under Jersey’s tax law. It will remove the archaic presumption in the current law that a wife’s income is deemed to belong to her husband.

“It brings to an end an outdated system that treats married women and younger spouses in same-sex relationships unfairly.”

During a debate on the issue at the States Assembly on Tuesday, Pinel said the anomaly dated back to 1928 when income tax was introduced on Jersey.

The minister added that when civil partnerships and same-sex marriages were introduced there was no time to reform the tax laws.

Instead the law assumed that the older partner would take the place of “the husband” and the younger “the wife”. Pinel said this could be seen as discriminatory and offensive and possibly open to legal challenge.

She said the change will convert “so-called married man’s taxation” into couple’s taxation – and was a stepping stone towards the introduction of independent taxation.

There have been concerns from bodies including Citizens Advice Jersey that the move could lead to a bigger tax bill for some couples. The Jersey Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that it would make the spouse/civil partner liable for the debt of the other party.

Pinel said: “To be clear, my proposition has no negative financial impact on any couple. It simply brings to an end an outdated system that treats married women and younger spouses in same-sex relationships unfairly.

“A very small number of commentators have raised concerns over [making] a couple jointly liable for the payment of any outstanding taxes that they may owe. But with equal rights come equal responsibilities and we will ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place in the event of financial hardship.”

Sam Mézec, a Jersey senator, said the change was “well overdue”. He added: “It’s simply wrong that in the year 2020 our tax law erases the identity of married women. It’s the stuff of medieval times, not the modern age. This ends that injustice. It puts us where we ought to have been for decades.”

Not all members were enthusiastic supporters. Senator Kristina Moore said she backed greater equality but claimed this “stepping stone” measure muddied the waters.

Concern was also expressed during the debate that a person could suddenly desert a family, leaving their partner facing a tax bill. The prospect of a coercive man or woman manipulating a partner by threatening them with the prospect of being liable for tax debts was also raised.

But the proposal won the backing of 40 members, with two against and two abstentions.

Jersey is not part of the UK but is a self-governing dependency with its own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and its own courts of law.





