header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Tax , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Taxing Matters

RESIDENCE: COUNTING THE DAYS

The details have now been published about how days are to be counted for the purposes of determining UK residence. From 6 April 2008, days of arrival and departure will be counted as days in the UK. There are two strands to this proposal—a statutory change and change of practice. The statutory tests for both income tax and capital gains tax are that an individual will be resident in the UK if he spends 183 days or more in the UK. This has been the statutory rule for a couple of hundred years. There is no guidance about how you calculated the 183 day rule but the case of Wilkie v IRC [1952] Ch 153, [1952] 1 All ER 92 decided that hours and minutes could be taken into account in determining whether the limit was breached. The published HMRC practice for the last 50 years has been to ignore days of arrival and departure in counting days for the 183-day test and the same practice has been applied to the 91-day rule; if a person spends an average of 91 days in the UK over four years, they are normally treated as resident and ordinarily resident from the beginning of the fifth year.

From 6 April 2008, a day of presence for the purpose of calculating residence will include days on which the individual arrives in or departs from the UK. There will be an exception for transit passengers who do not leave the boat or aircraft, or stay airside. That will be the statutory rule and will apply only to the 183-day test. However, HMRC has announced that it will change its practice from 6 April 2008 in relation to the 91-day average so that for the purposes of this test the days of arrival and departure will similarly be taken into account.

Implications

While in principle this seems like a simple enough change, the implications are rather more wide ranging. If days of arrival and departure are both counted, what really matters is if you are in the UK at midnight because if you are, that is bound to count as two days.

Mr Brown seems to think that people who come here on Tuesday and leave on Thursday will become resident and be subject to UK tax. Er no. Wake up. They won’t come…or if they do, they will make quite sure that they do not stay the night but leave on the last flight. Similarly, they will not want to come here the night before a meeting so as to be refreshed and properly prepared; that would just add one more day to their tally so there is going to be a considerable demand for more early morning flights to the UK and more late flights out of the UK—and a corresponding reduction in the demand for hotel accommodation. Good news for foreign airlines and foreign hotels—but nobody in their right mind could think that this is anything but damaging to Great Britain Plc.

 

Issue: 7309 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Tax , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll