Residence of individuals

The tax residence of an individual has long been relevant in determining liability to income tax and capital gains tax (CGT). As is explained in Practice Note: Introductory guide to residence and domicile for UK tax purposes before 6 April 2025 [ARCHIVED], those resident in the UK are taxable on their worldwide income and gains. Non-residents, by contrast, are taxable only on certain sources of UK income, and their capital gains are in general free from tax.

Before 6 April 2025, tax residence was not relevant to inheritance tax (IHT); rather, domicile was the key factor determining liability to IHT—see Practice Note: Domicile for UK tax purposes before 6 April 2025 [Archived] However, since 6 April 2025, liability to IHT is based on residence in the UK. For more information, see:

Prior to 6 April 2013, ordinary residence applied as a distinct concept from residence and domicile for UK tax purposes. The concept of ordinary residence was removed and replaced with references to residence from 6 April 2013. But under transitional rules, ordinary residence continues to apply to certain individuals who were resident in the UK for

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 section 75A FA 2003 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