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

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll