Remarkably confused

This piece doesn\’t seem to be making the correct distinctions between residence and domicile.

From what is actually said it looks like he isn\’t resident but is (possibly) still domiciled. But you do have to read between the lines a bit to get what they\’re saying. Not important, of course, just would have thought a newspaper piece would be clearer than that.

1 thought on “Remarkably confused”

  1. The case itself was on two points – both whether he was ordinarily resident in the UK, and whether he acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. (It’s quite common in tax cases to run double lines of argument to ensure that if one leg falls, you can fall back on the not-quite-as-good position.)

    It’s an interesting one – the Special Commissioners held that, as a matter of fact, he never actually left the UK, and so the familiar (to tax advisors) test of spending an average of 91 days over 4 years wouldn’t apply. Therefore, he was ordinarily UK resident. Furthermore, they took one look at his claims to have shed UK domicile, and in essence, said ‘nice try, sunshine’ and moved on.

    It’s an interesting case, in many respects. I don’t know why he took it from the special commissioners, as you can’t get matters of fact overturned in a higher court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *