Red Eric

No there's nothing to stop the new conditions being altered.

However, the fact that the people on the existing conditions will not be affected - as has been explicitly stated by one or another of the government's spokespersons on more than one occasion over the years when the topic has been officially discussed - does indeed send a very strong signal that they would never indulge in such a gross breach of trust in the future either. They can alter the rules for new entrants as often as they like, provided those who are on a previous version retain the benefits unaltered in the version they signed up to. Given the time-limited nature of the status, it would be completely nonsensical for it to be otherwise.

The only 2 exceptions I can see which would be legit for altering existing terms would be if it were explicitly stated at the time of acquisition that they could be altered at any time and made effective on existing beneficiaries, or by renegotiated DTAs giving the income source country altered rights on taxation of it (which obviously doesn't constitute the same thing). Other than that, I'd be flabbergasted if that turned out not to be the case ever.

Diddion

Yes, Red Eric, I agree with your assessment. Just quibbling over the word ‘completely’, really!

dingg

Those that first signed up to nhr were assured it was renewable after the first 10 Yr period, that was subsequently withdrawn.

Red Eric

That was not an assurance issued by the government or written into the law, so it couldn't have been subsequently withdrawn.

As far as I'm aware, the first law explicitly stated that it was non-renewable.

dingg

The only information I have on it is an acquaintance signed up as an early adopter of nhr and had been advised it was renewable after 10 years.
He was an investment banker and used pwc in Lisbon as his accountant.
He's now sold up and back in UK.

Diddion

Hence avoiding the disappointment of discovering that he was wrong.

Red Eric

I'm going to have to eat humble pie here. Double helping, please.

The first law of 2009 did give it as 10 years, renewable. The revision in 2012 removed the chance of renewing.

There is a legal argument that the fact of having to renew made any of the terms revocable at time of renewal but not before. So the 10 years is a protected status but the renewability not. I don't know whether that was ever tested in court but I can certainly see the difference, even if I don't wholeheartedly concur from a trust point of view. It potentially affects 467 people.

Pioneiros do regime fiscal para estrangeiros impedidos de renová-lo

ETA - I don't know whether anybody who was in that group hasactually been refused a renewal

dingg

He had his house up for 1.5m so the cgt issue was a driver to relocate within the time frame. If he could have extended I think he would have.

Diddion I don't understand your comment?

qianh

https://vivoinportogallo.com/en/5-th...appinstalled=0

this is quite clear, also with link to original proposal

Red Eric

Who wouldn't?

Actually, there appears to have been some academic debate at the time of the creation of the first law as to whether the reference to renewal did or did not contradict the essential requirement of the granting of the status to have not been fiscally resident in the country for the previous 5 years.

In other word - according to some - it was at least questionable whether the 10 year periods could run consecutively or only if separated by a 5 year absence.

I stress "at the time" there as it avoids the possibility of suggesting that it was something only later dreamt up to justify the alteration, but rather was possibly the driver for the alteration to the wording in the subsequent amendment to the law.

Diddion

Sorry, I don´t understand my comment either. Actually, I was talking through the wrong orifice, as I had not appreciated the early rules of NHR.

Red Eric

It was my fault, sorry.

I should have checked the 2009 law before posting.

Pilou

The 10% tax on pensions is approved.

https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noti...e-porto-544186

dingg

It appears I was wrong.

I bet you feel good eh?

🙄

Pilou

Yes I feel good, because the minimum tax of EUR 7.500 per person is off the table.
The 10% on pensions is not too bad.