fbpx

Double Taxation Treaties – Wealthy South African Relieved of £10 Million Bill

13th June 2022 By

Rich individuals often have their feet firmly planted in more than one country and that can give rise to disputes as to where they should be taxed. In a guideline case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considered the position of an extremely wealthy man with extensive ties to both the UK and the Republic of South Africa.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) argued that the man was liable for Income Tax in respect of more than £20 million that he received from a family trust during five tax years. He asserted that, for the purposes of the UK’s double taxation treaty with South Africa, he was resident in the latter and should thus be taxed there. The amount of tax at stake in the dispute came to over £10 million.

Ruling on the matter, the FTT found that, although he possessed substantial homes in South Africa, most of the property and other assets that he owned outright were in the UK. During the relevant tax years, the settled routine of his family life was in the UK. He spent more time in the UK than in South Africa and, although he never received a salary in this country, he worked remotely in and from the UK and it was in the UK that he paid tax on his employment income.

The FTT, however, noted that he was a national of South Africa and rejected HMRC’s arguments that he had put down deep roots in this country. He and his wife owned homes on three continents but there was very clear evidence that their closest personal links were to friends and family in South Africa. South Africa, its people and culture were rarely out of his thoughts and he had an ongoing and longstanding emotional and financial commitment to its future as a nation.

His various occupations and political interests were also more closely linked to South Africa than to the UK. In upholding his appeal, the FTT found that his centre of vital interests had always been in South Africa. By operation of the double taxation treaty, therefore, he was deemed to have been resident in South Africa for tax purposes throughout the relevant period.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...