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

Creating a Family Trust? Are You Sure It Reflects Your True Intentions?

20th April, 2021 By

Rather than giving money to your children directly, you may choose for a variety of good reasons to provide for them by way of a discretionary trust. Such a step is a serious matter, however, and as a High Court case underlined, it is extremely difficult to alter a trust deed after it has been formally executed. The case concerned a father who wished to make provision for his three children from an inheritance of about £450,000 that he had received from his mother. He signed a deed that varied...

Sensible Divorcees Put Personal Animosity Aside – Court of Appeal Ruling

15th April, 2021 By

Any good lawyer will tell you that it is far better for divorcing couples to agree how their assets should be divided, rather than fighting it out in court. A Court of Appeal case showed, however, that, where personal animosity persists, it is only too easy for the terms of such agreements to themselves become the subject of dispute. The case concerned a very wealthy couple who, following highly acrimonious divorce proceedings, resolved to settle their differences. They signed a consent order which it was hoped would lead to a...

COVID-19 – High Court Authorises Vaccination of Elderly Dementia Sufferer

12th April, 2021 By

Should vulnerable people who lack the mental capacity to make important decisions for themselves be vaccinated against COVID-19 even in the face of objections from their loved ones? The High Court confronted that uniquely difficult issue in the case of an 80-year-old care home resident who was suffering from dementia. The woman's son did not object to vaccination in principle but was deeply sceptical about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the speed at which they had been authorised for use. In opposing her vaccination, he argued that her wishes...

In Dispute with Your Neighbour? A Lawyer Will Help to Restore Peace

9th April, 2021 By

Disputes between neighbours frequently inflict enormous emotional and financial harm on all involved. A High Court dispute concerning use of a shared driveway showed why any lawyer would advise sensible negotiation as a far better alternative to litigation. A couple's right of way over the driveway, by which they accessed their rural home, was restricted to passage on foot or by private motor vehicles. Their neighbour, with whom they shared the driveway, launched proceedings against them alleging that they were in long-standing breach of that restriction by permitting its use...