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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll