In R (oao Davies & James) v HMRC (Supreme Court – 19 October) HMRC issued a ruling that two UK citizens who had houses in both England and Belgium were resident in the UK for 2001/02 and were therefore liable to pay capital gains tax.
They applied for judicial review contending that IR20 indicated that they would not be treated as resident in the UK and that they therefore had a legitimate expectation that they would not be liable to CGT.
The CA heard the application for judicial review and unanimously dismissed it. Ward LJ held that HMRC had been entitled to construe IR20 ‘in such a way as to require the taxpayer to show that he has severed social domestic and family ties in the United Kingdom’.
The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In R (oao Davies & James) v HMRC (Supreme Court – 19 October) HMRC issued a ruling that two UK citizens who had houses in both England and Belgium were resident in the UK for 2001/02 and were therefore liable to pay capital gains tax.
They applied for judicial review contending that IR20 indicated that they would not be treated as resident in the UK and that they therefore had a legitimate expectation that they would not be liable to CGT.
The CA heard the application for judicial review and unanimously dismissed it. Ward LJ held that HMRC had been entitled to construe IR20 ‘in such a way as to require the taxpayer to show that he has severed social domestic and family ties in the United Kingdom’.
The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
