fbpx

Tax Tribunal Rules Peripatetic Businessman 'Ordinarily Resident' in the UK

26th February 2021 By

Many businesspeople lead peripatetic lives of constant international travel and the crucial question of whether they are settled in the UK for tax purposes can be very difficult to answer. A First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruling, however, revealed the lengths to which HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will go to establish that a taxpayer is ordinarily resident in this country.

The case concerned the tax treatment of £578,400 received by an overseas national on the severance of an employment contract. He claimed that, by virtue of Section 414 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, he was entitled to foreign service relief in respect of £252,923 of that sum. HMRC disputed his claim. The amount of tax at stake was £114,458.

The case hinged on whether he was ordinarily resident in the UK during the period of 40 months to which his claim for relief related. He accepted that he was resident in the UK for much of that period, but denied that he was ordinarily so. He asserted, amongst other things, that he lived for long periods out of a suitcase and that he spent roughly 70 per cent of his time working abroad.

Rejecting his appeal, however, the FTT found him an unreliable witness. His bank and credit card statements – which detailed payments for, amongst other things, haircuts, dining out and having his shirts ironed – placed him regularly and habitually in the UK during the relevant period. On an ordinary day during that period, he would usually have been found either working in London, at home with his family in Kent or otherwise at leisure in the UK.

At the beginning of the period, he had voluntarily adopted the UK as his abode for the settled purposes of his work and promoting his family life. The FTT found on the evidence that he was present in the UK for 34 of the relevant 40 months. His absences abroad were of a temporary nature and he had been ordinarily resident in this country throughout the relevant period.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...