Skip Navigation
  • Home
  • About Us
  • National sites
  • Myacca
  • Blogs
  • ACCA Discuss
  • ACCA.TV
  • Podcasts
  • Accamail
ACCA - the global body for professional accountants


Advanced search
  • Join Us
  • Students & Affiliates
  • Members
  • Employers
  • Learning Providers
  • General Public
ACCA Homepage < ACCA UK < UK members < Technical Advisory < Technical advice and support < Tax < Tax cases < Income tax cases
  • Income tax cases
  • Dr Andreas Helmut Tuczka – First Tier Tribunal Case
  • 3315476
  • First-Tier Tribunal Tax Cases – reasonable excuse
  • Garnett v Jones (re Arctic Systems Ltd)
  • The Upper and First-Tier Tribunals – What is a Reasonable excuse?
  • Pook v Owen
  • Fall v Hitchin (1972) 49TC433
  • O'Leary v McKinlay
  • Dr K M A Manzur v Commissioners for HMRC
  • Pepper v Hart & Others
  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
  • G Bushell v HMRC
  • HMRC v Landsdowne Partners Ltd Partnership [2010] EWHC 2582 (Ch)
  • SCA Packaging Ltd v HMRC
  • Walker v Adams
  • Dragonfly Consulting Ltd v HMRC
  • R (on the application of Davies and another) v HMRC R (on the application of Gaines-Cooper) v HMRC - [2010] All ER (D) 197 (Feb)
  • Reed Employment v HMRC
  • EMI Group Electronics Ltd v Coldicott (aka Thorn EMI Electronics Ltd v Coldicott)
  • Fall v Hitchen
  • Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security
  • Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Dr Piu Banerjee
  • Walton v R & C Commrs; [2009] TC 00273
  • Hall v Lorimer (1994)
  • Demibourne Ltd v HMRC Sp C [2005] SSCD 667 (Sp C 486)
  • Income shifting cases
  • IR35 tax cases
  • Parade Park Hotel and Another v HMRC P May v HMRC Sp C [2007] SSCD 430 (Sp C 599)
  • Corporation tax cases
  • Business tax cases
  • Capital allowances cases
  • Capital gains tax cases
  • VAT cases
  • Inheritance tax cases
  • Tax Administration and Key Principles

top stories

  • Your PER questions answered Your PER questions answered - opens in a new window
  • ACCA moves online ACCA moves online - opens in a new window
  • Reminder as self-assessment deadline Reminder as self-assessment deadline - opens in a new window
  • Young need better jobs advice, says ACCA Young need better jobs advice, says ACCA - opens in a new window


  • See more news more
    See global news more
Send
Print
Share

R (on the application of Davies and another) v HMRC R (on the application of Gaines-Cooper) v HMRC - [2010] All ER (D) 197 (Feb)

In this case, the appellants were applying for a judicial review of HMRC’s ruling on their residence status.  The taxpayers had left the UK and claimed to be not resident and not ordinarily resident in the UK.  HMRC had determined that the taxpayers were ordinary resident in the UK as they had not sufficiently severed all ties with the UK.   The taxpayers had not exceeded the relevant number of days to be regarded as UK resident but the main issue at stake was whether they had made a sufficient “break” from the UK to be regarded as not ordinarily resident. 

Held – It was held that since the taxpayers retained strong family and social connections as well as property in the UK at which they stayed when they visited, that they had not made a sufficient “break” from the UK to be regarded as not ordinarily resident.  The taxpayers sought a judicial review of HMRC’s interpretation of IR20, claiming that they had changed their interpretation of the guidance in 2004/05, although this was held not to be the case.

Comment: 

It has long been considered that the tests for residence and ordinarily residence, which are largely based on case law, are not fit for purpose in the modern business world and widely open to interpretation.  As long ago as 1936, the Income Tax Codification Committee complained that the absence of guidance as to whether or not a taxpayer was resident in the United Kingdom was intolerable. In 1973, the Revenue issued the first version of IR20, a booklet designed to provide what it described as general guidance in relation to the residence and ordinary residence of individuals.  In 2008, IR20 was superseded by updated guidance, in the form of HMRC6, which places greater emphasis on “patterns of lifestyle”. 

This case, together with HMRC v Tuczka, is a very important case, which causes  uncertainty in the area of residence and ordinary residence and will increase calls for the introduction of a statutory-based residence test to bring some much-needed clarity to UK business on residency issues.

 

 

Back to top

 
  • Contact us
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Site map
© 2010 ACCA