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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll