header-logo header-logo

01 February 2007 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7258 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

taxing matters

RESIDENCE: THE LATEST APPROACH

The case of Gaines-Cooper v HMRC SpC 568 has recently been reported by the special commissioners and has caused a good deal of comment in the national and professional press. The issue is all about how you count the days to determine whether somebody is resident in the UK or not and whether you can rely on the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) booklet IR20 on residence. The question was whether Robert Gaines-Cooper was resident in the UK. He prepared a detailed schedule of days spent in the UK, carefully and precisely in accordance with the IR20 HMRC guidance, ignoring days of arrival and departure. However, HMRC said that the days of arrival and departure should not be ignored after all. What about its hallowed practice which has been in IR20 for the last 30 years? Never mind about that; HMRC decided that it should count the days in another way—and concluded that Gaines-Cooper was resident.

A worrying approach and a new test

This approach is intensely worrying and everybody is

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll