Non-domiciliaries and the remittance basis (to 5 April 2025)

ARCHIVED: This Overview has been archived and is not maintained.

This subtopic focuses on the tax regime prior to 6 April 2025 applicable to non-UK domiciliaries (non-doms) who, prior to that date, were UK resident and their eligibility to claim the remittance basis of taxation. For guidance on the tax position of non-doms who are resident outside the UK, see the Non-resident individuals—overview.

Introduction to the remittance basis before 6 April 2025—training materials [Archived] is aimed at trainee and junior lawyers and is designed to illustrate the key points of the remittance basis regime. It can be adapted by the user as required.

Residence and domicile

The concepts of residence and domicile are used to establish the extent of an individual's liability to UK taxation. For guidance on these concepts, see the Residence of individuals—overview and Practice Notes: Domicile for UK tax purposes before 6 April 2025 [Archived] and Deemed domicile for tax before 6 April 2017 [Archived]. Changes were made to the deemed domicile rules from 6 April 2017. See Practice Note: Deemed domicile for tax from 6 April 2017.

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents