header-logo header-logo

28 July 2011 / Peter Vaines
Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

Peter Vaines explains why it’s all about residence…

The case of Mr Gaines-Cooper reached the Supreme Court this month. In case you have been away for a while on Voyager, the issue here is whether Mr Gaines-Cooper should properly be regarded as not resident on the grounds that he satisfied the terms of the long standing Inland Revenue practice set out in their booklet IR20.

Mr Gaines-Cooper left the UK in 1976 to live abroad. He wrote to HMRC and after four years they wrote to him enquiring about the number of days he had spent in the UK. He gave them the details which showed he was comfortably below the 91 day limit for these years. He thought nothing more about it because as everybody knew, that was the practice in establishing non-residence. You leave the UK and do not return for more than 90 days each year and under the HMRC practice you were treated as non-resident.

Twenty years later HMRC decided to tax Mr Gaines-Cooper on the basis that he was UK resident. They explained to everybody that we had completely misunderstood

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