Talk:Akshata Murty

Introducing personal analysis
Hi USer:Pol098 I see the attempts you are making to change how this article reports on her tax status. I see they are good faith edits and probably accurate. However, you cannot just change the article based on your interpretation of circumstances, even if they are correct. Please, add material with inline citations. Everyone should support that, but you cannot just change the content based on your own analysis. See WP:OR CT55555 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added references to existing sources to support the text. Is there any other particular statement that requires a source? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better. But please note: we don't put citations in the lede. We make the article fully cited and then summarize it into the lede. CT55555 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amongst various points, her having an Indian passport is irrelevant; it's citizenship that matters. Source states that she is an Indian citizen ("Ms Murty, an Indian citizen"). The fact that her income is from Infosys is irrelevant; what matters is that it's overseas income. Sources so state ("Akshata Murty opted to claim non-dom status, meaning she does not have to pay UK tax on her overseas income"). That she pays £30,000 pa for non-domiciled status is sourced. Is there anything else that needs sourcing, or clarifying? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on the nationality rather than passport, your edit was an improvement. The source of her income is a notable fact, please remember this is an article about her, not just about her tax situation, and her income is a notable aspect of her. I think overall the edits are good. I think the way it's written could be tweaked. I'll leave it for a bit and see what others think/say and may edit just for style. I may specifically edit the citation out of the lede and the bit where it says "not having to" as that seems like a change in tone, but it's not a big deal, so will wait a bit. CT55555 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding "not having to": it's important not to imply that she has evaded paying taxes she was obliged to. While this could be reworded, simply "not paying tax" is not good. I'd comment that I see significant untaxed overseas income as the essential point; that it comes from Infosys is less relevant. In other words "not paying tax" and "huge income from Infosys" are both relevant, but "not paying tax on her income from Infosys" conflates them unnecessarily. But I'm not too fussed about this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think our job is to just say what happened. Not to go adding "legally" or "not legally" to everyone's actions on wikipedia. If the sources say "legally" or "not legally" that would be a different matter, but you seem to be back into adding your own take on things. We don't say she got married legally, or went to university legally, or ran her business legally. You get my point? CT55555 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are quite clear and explicit that she is not obliged to pay tax. This is not only an issue of being clear in an encyclopaedia entry; saying that someone who would normally be liable "does not pay tax" could be construed as libellous. I tend to be cautious about this sort of statement for that reason. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not libelous to say that someone who didn't pay tax didn't pay tax. "The truth" is a very effective legal defense in libel cases. CT55555 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The potential legal implications are my only objection to simply "did not pay tax". I note that all the news media sources are careful to point out that she was entitled not to pay. If this were a newspaper I would put this through the legal department, who word things to avoid trouble where possible, rather than relying on defending. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia equivalent of running it by legal would be to post on WP:BLPN if you feel something is dubious here. CT55555 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the term 'followed the rules/did not follow the rules' could be useful. Paying tax should not be rubbery matter. In this day and age, with a lot of pressure on the public purse from health matters and wars, slackness makes everything more difficult. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:D4EB:ACB8:7DB8:400C (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I put in a wikilink to Double taxation which seems to resolve this per the law in the United Kingdom. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Statements advertising humble upbringing and willingness to pay tax
Hi Adakiko, the statements removed from Early life section that talk about "humble upbringings" appear to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The same is the case with "she said she will pay taxes" in Personal Life section. The fact that she has paid taxes can be added to the article after the act is done. Coming back to statements in early life section, could you help me understand their importance and relevance to this article but not of the sibling Rohan Murty? Appreciate your help. Thanks! Cockatoo17 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to say, I agree with your comments here and your edits. I'm not sure if it's relevant to say, but I created the article in the first place. (Of course, I'm aware of WP:OWN and make no claim of ownership or anything like that). I didn't like these edits, but the volume of edits for a while was a lot and I only reverted the most troubling ones. CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voicing your opinion and for efforts taken to compile this article. It is indeed a difficult one to write. There's not much published about her work as a fashion designer, or contributions to firms she has associations with, but a lot about being a Murthy, being associated with a politician running for PM office, and then the tax bit unfortunately. If one is to only consider career and contributions (and not fame acquired due to wealth and associations), then she barely qualifies for a wiki page. Cockatoo17 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we concerns ourselves less about why they are notable and more about if they are notable. i.e. being notable for wealth or tax issues is no more nor no less valid than being notable for fashion and career. She absolutely qualifies for a wikipedia page, the relevant guideline is WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. There is signficiant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks for explaining. Quentinhotwater (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal wealth ranking
IP editor 92.15.144.174 has removed mention of her wealth ranking (222th in the UK) despite this being widely reported and a matter of interest. I invited them to bring this to the talk page, they declined. I've reverted the edit twice, and hope to discuss here.

Examples of reporting on this: CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rishi-sunak-becomes-richest-ever-occupant-number-10-2022-10-25/
 * 2) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/20/sri-and-gopi-hinduja-named-uk-richest-people-james-dyson
 * 3) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61490481
 * There's no problem whatsoever with this being in the article, but I think it's a bit strange to mention the wealth in the lead here but not on the lead of Rishi Sunak's article, IMO it should be in the lead of both articles for consistency. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider WP:WHATABOUT and let's discuss here what should be on this page, and discuss elsewhere what should be on other pages. For what it's worth Rishi is probably best known for being Prime Minister and Akshata is probably best known for being wealthy and his wife. CT55555 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a pretty good point, so leaving things the way they are is the best solution. Just wanted to clarify that I never had a problem with her wealth being mentioned here. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accidentally overstated the point, and acknowledge that you removed it only form the lede, not the whole article. Sorry for that. CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Akshata murthy (cropped).png

Taxes
I'd like to change this sentence:

"If Murty pays UK taxes on her worldwide income, but retains her non-domiciliary status, she can benefit from a provision in a 1956 treaty that was designed to help avoid double taxation of Indian citizens in India as well as the UK."

...using this quote from the referenced article, which provides more context/clarity:

"Non-dom status "wears off" after 15 years and the person is subject to all tax requirements of a UK citizen - including on their estate. But there is an exception for Indian citizens around inheritance tax. A technicality means that even if Ms Murty agrees to pay UK taxes on her worldwide income, but retains her non-dom status, she can still benefit from a provision in a 1956 treaty that was designed to stop Indian citizens being double-taxed on their estates in the UK and India....India abolished inheritance tax in the 1980s, but this tax exemption was never revoked. So Ms Murty could have her estate taxed there at zero upon her death, rather than in the UK at 40% - saving £280m on her £700m stake in the company founded by her father."Lena Key (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)