header-logo header-logo

28 July 2011 / Peter Vaines
Categories: Features , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

Peter Vaines explains why it’s all about residence…

The case of Mr Gaines-Cooper reached the Supreme Court this month. In case you have been away for a while on Voyager, the issue here is whether Mr Gaines-Cooper should properly be regarded as not resident on the grounds that he satisfied the terms of the long standing Inland Revenue practice set out in their booklet IR20.

Mr Gaines-Cooper left the UK in 1976 to live abroad. He wrote to HMRC and after four years they wrote to him enquiring about the number of days he had spent in the UK. He gave them the details which showed he was comfortably below the 91 day limit for these years. He thought nothing more about it because as everybody knew, that was the practice in establishing non-residence. You leave the UK and do not return for more than 90 days each year and under the HMRC practice you were treated as non-resident.

Twenty years later HMRC decided to tax Mr Gaines-Cooper on the basis that he was UK

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
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
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’
back-to-top-scroll