Individuals leaving the UK

STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime

Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025) which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements legislation to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, commencing on 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also replaces domicile as the key factor in establishing liability to inheritance tax. Other changes include amendment of the rules determining excluded property status, the abolition of protected settlements status of offshore trusts, and changes to overseas workday relief.

For information on these changes, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025.

This subtopic deals with the income tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and inheritance tax (IHT) implications for emigrating individuals. Fundamental to this is the statutory meaning of UK residence brought into effect by the Finance Act 2013 (FA 2013) with effect from 6 April 2013. Non-tax implications

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Question of the week: In the context of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, if the three children of the deceased are residuary beneficiaries (which includes the entire net estate), if one adult child brings a family provision claim, are they likely to be successful given that the Will provides for them to be treated equally with the other children?

This Q&A considers whether, in the context of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, if the 3 children of the Deceased are residuary beneficiaries (which includes the entire net estate), if one adult child brings a family provision claim, are they likely to be successful given that the Will provides for them to be treated equally with the other children.

Compulsory mediation and costs-only parties in probate dispute (Ivey v Lythgoe)

Private Client analysis: In Ivey & Others v Lythgoe and another, the High Court considered a dispute over the validity and rectification of two Wills made by David Ivey, who died in 2023. The claimants, his nephews and niece, argued that a 2009 Will prepared by Trust Inheritance Ltd did not reflect his true intentions and was the result of professional negligence. They alleged that the company misinterpreted David’s instructions, wrongly excluding intended beneficiaries. The court refused to join the company as a costs-only party under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), holding that negligence must first be established. Instead, it ordered consolidation of the probate and negligence claims under CPR 3.1(2)(h), recognising the factual overlap. The court also directed the company to participate in mediation under CPR 3.1(2)(o), emphasising the importance of alternative dispute resolution. The case also highlights the duty of care owed by Will-writing professionals and the procedural tools available to manage overlapping claims efficiently. Written by Jacob Ashforth, associate, and Madeleine Chambers, trainee solicitor at Burges Salmon LLP.

Armstrong v Armstrong (remedy)—satisfying the equity arising from proprietary estoppel, with an alternative award under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Private Client analysis: Having found that the claimant had established his claims in proprietary estoppel and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) at trial (Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)), the court went on to consider the appropriate remedy, aiming to achieve as clean a break as possible between members of the same farming family whose business affairs were closely entwined. The Court also considered the appropriate award under the I(PFD)A 1975 in the alternative, in case the finding of an estoppel should be overturned upon appeal. Written by William Moffett, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

No line of sight—due execution and presence In the Estate of Kathleen Coady

Private Client analysis: District Judge Chloë Phillips has given judgment in Coady v Coady PT-2023-BHM-000025 (Business & Property Courts in Birmingham (Probate)), determining as a preliminary issue whether a coronavirus (COVID-19) era ‘garden signing’ satisfied section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837). The court held that it did not, with the result that the Will of 25 April 2020 was invalid. Written by Charlotte John of Gatehouse Chambers.