header-logo header-logo

26 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Tax

R (on the application of Davies and another) v HM Revenue & Customs, R (on the application of Gaines-Cooper) v HM Revenue & Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 83, [2010] All ER (D) 197 (Feb)

Paragraph 2.2 of IR20 did not entitle a person to non-resident status, for capital gains tax purposes, unless he left to work full-time either before or by the start of a tax year.

To come within 2.2, a taxpayer had to leave for, and remain in, full-time employment throughout the relevant tax year.

Full-time employment throughout any subsequent tax years did not affect the date when a taxpayer first attained non-resident status; that date was determined by reference to the date the taxpayer left to work full-time abroad. IR20 had to be construed as a whole, by reference to all its provisions and so far as possible so that they did not contradict each other.

It made no sense to permit a taxpayer to claim non-resident status under 2.2 notwithstanding that the full-time employment started only part way through his tax year in the light of para 1.5.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll