One minute with Fiona Poole, Managing Director of Oak Group (Bahamas).
What’s keeping you busy at work?
Prior to my recent move, a significant amount of my time was spent advising on the abolition of the remittance basis, the new four-year FIG regime and the inheritance tax reforms affecting non-doms. The wider inheritance tax reforms on relief for business property and agricultural property were also at the front of my clients’ minds.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
That tax is as much about people as it is about legislation. Early on, I focused heavily on technical precision – which is, of course, essential – but experience has taught me that the best advice anticipates human behaviour, emotional responses and risk tolerance. None of us rarely acts in a purely rational way, especially when family, legacy and identity are involved.
What impact has the recent Budget uncertainty had on your clients?
One of the most striking features of recent Budget cycles has been the volume of press speculation and policy signalling in the weeks beforehand, often followed by partial reversals or quiet recalibration once behavioural consequences become apparent. This ‘announce first, assess later’ approach creates uncertainty that is particularly damaging for the families I advise, whose decisions are long-term and often irreversible.
We have seen repeated examples where changes were introduced with limited (or largely ignored) industry consultation, only for HM Treasury or HMRC to row back once capital flight, reduced inward investment or practical complexity became evident. The non-dom reforms are a clear illustration.
From an adviser’s perspective, this reinforces a broader concern: tax policy works best when informed by real-world behaviour, not retrospective modelling. Waiting to ‘see what happens’ after implementation may offer political flexibility, but it comes at the cost of stability, trust and predictability.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would reform the UK’s approach to transitional rules. Too often, major changes are announced with limited clarity and compressed timelines, creating uncertainty that drives sub-optimal behaviour. Clearer, longer transitional periods would support better compliance and reduce the incentive for rushed restructurings.
And finally, you might not know this about me but…
Before studying law and tax, I was awarded a degree in Criminal Psychology.
One minute with Fiona Poole, Managing Director of Oak Group (Bahamas).
What’s keeping you busy at work?
Prior to my recent move, a significant amount of my time was spent advising on the abolition of the remittance basis, the new four-year FIG regime and the inheritance tax reforms affecting non-doms. The wider inheritance tax reforms on relief for business property and agricultural property were also at the front of my clients’ minds.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
That tax is as much about people as it is about legislation. Early on, I focused heavily on technical precision – which is, of course, essential – but experience has taught me that the best advice anticipates human behaviour, emotional responses and risk tolerance. None of us rarely acts in a purely rational way, especially when family, legacy and identity are involved.
What impact has the recent Budget uncertainty had on your clients?
One of the most striking features of recent Budget cycles has been the volume of press speculation and policy signalling in the weeks beforehand, often followed by partial reversals or quiet recalibration once behavioural consequences become apparent. This ‘announce first, assess later’ approach creates uncertainty that is particularly damaging for the families I advise, whose decisions are long-term and often irreversible.
We have seen repeated examples where changes were introduced with limited (or largely ignored) industry consultation, only for HM Treasury or HMRC to row back once capital flight, reduced inward investment or practical complexity became evident. The non-dom reforms are a clear illustration.
From an adviser’s perspective, this reinforces a broader concern: tax policy works best when informed by real-world behaviour, not retrospective modelling. Waiting to ‘see what happens’ after implementation may offer political flexibility, but it comes at the cost of stability, trust and predictability.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would reform the UK’s approach to transitional rules. Too often, major changes are announced with limited clarity and compressed timelines, creating uncertainty that drives sub-optimal behaviour. Clearer, longer transitional periods would support better compliance and reduce the incentive for rushed restructurings.
And finally, you might not know this about me but…
Before studying law and tax, I was awarded a degree in Criminal Psychology.
