From 6 April 2025, residence replaced domicile as the principal connecting factor for the new foreign income and gains (FIG) regime and for determining the scope of inheritance tax (IHT) on non-UK assets, subject to the detailed charging rules, exemptions, reliefs and any applicable double tax treaty. Before 6 April 2025, domicile and deemed domicile were also relevant factors in determining liability to IHT and eligibility to claim the remittance basis of taxation (see Practice Note: Introductory guide to residence and domicile for UK tax purposes before 6 April 2025 [ARCHIVED]). This Practice Note considers the statutory residence test (SRT) which applies after 5 April 2013. Residence rules from 6 April 2013 The SRT was introduced by Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013 (FA 2013) and took effect on 6 April 2013 (see Structure of the statutory residence test below for an introduction to the SRT). Before this, whether an individual was tax resident in the UK or not was determined by a combination of limited statutory provisions, case law and HMRC guidance. Subject

This Practice Note considers the requirement of trustees to submit a Trust and Estate Tax Return (form SA900) where a trust is liable for income tax and/or capital gains tax (CGT). For guidance on the tax rules relating to trust income, expenses and capital gains and the calculation of tax liabilities, see the Trusts—income tax and capital gains tax subtopic. For commentary on completion of the Trust and Estate Tax Return for estates by personal representatives, see Practice Note: Estate tax returns and informal procedures. All UK express trusts (not just those with a UK tax liability in a particular tax year) need to be registered with the Trust Registration Service (TRS) unless exempt. See Online registration and beneficial ownership information reporting requirements for trustees below for further guidance. Requirement to submit a tax return The income and gains of trusts are assessed under the Self Assessment regime. If HMRC have issued a return or a notice to complete a return then trustees must complete a Trust and Estate Tax Return

This Practice Note is about the VAT zero-rating for developers selling or leasing residential buildings, other than dwellings, that they have constructed. These are referred to as buildings for a ‘relevant residential purpose’ or RRP. For information on the zero-rating of dwellings, see Practice Note: Zero-rated sales and leases—person constructing a dwelling. Why does zero-rating matter? If the zero-rating does not apply, the transaction will usually be exempt, so that the developer cannot recover VAT (ie input tax) on costs, such as on the construction of the building, fees and perhaps on the acquisition of the site. For more details, see Practice Note: When can a person recover VAT? There is also zero-rating for the construction of an RRP building, but this only applies where the work is commissioned by the end user, such as the operator of a care home. The zero-rating covered by this Practice Note is an alternative to this; someone constructing such a building for use by others will incur VAT on the construction costs, but can recover

Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment dealt with sentencing for 31 particularised grounds of contempt, following protracted litigation between Super-Max Offshore Holdings and their former owner and later Executive Chairman, Rakesh Malhotra. Sir Michael Burton divided the 31 offences into five categories of seriousness, applying a combination of concurrent and consecutive custodial sentences before making an overall reduction to account for totality. The total sentence was 15 months—stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judge rejected a submission that the court should take into account the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) when sentencing, although it is not clear whether he was specifically referred to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 where it was held that ‘the current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence.’ Written by Alexander West, barrister, at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has published its third costs and duration analysis, covering arbitration cases from 1 January 2017 to 12 May 2024. The report reveals that the median LCIA arbitration costs $117,653 and lasts 20 months, with tribunals taking four months to produce awards. Notably, cases with claims under $1m are resolved in just 12 months. The analysis demonstrates that LCIA arbitration costs are lower than those of compared institutions across most dispute amounts, particularly for larger cases. Despite a slight increase in median costs from the previous report, overall costs and duration have remained relatively stable since 2017. The study also acknowledges the potential impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on case duration, though further analysis is required to fully assess its effects.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a breach of contract claim between a Canadian seller and a US (Minnesota) buyer for the sale of hand sanitisers during the early stages of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Although the US buyer alleged that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) constituted an ‘impermissible new theory of liability at the summary judgment stage’, the court held that the CISG applied because the sales contract had been executed between parties of contracting states, Minnesota law governed the contract, and the parties had (neither explicitly nor implicitly) opted-out of the CISG. The court further ruled that an invoice was not a condition precedent in a cash-on-delivery (COD) contract. Finally, repudiating from US case law, the court held that attorneys’ fees were recoverable as foreseeable damages under CISG Art 74. Written by Gizem Alper, independent international legal and ADR advisor.

The Cabinet Office has published an implementation update detailing progress across ten civil emergency preparedness recommendations from the coronavirus (COVID-19) Inquiry's Module 1 report. The update confirms that two recommendations have been closed. Key developments include the publication of the updated Central Government Concept of Operations for Emergency Response and Recovery (the Amber Book) in April 2025, and a revised National Risk Register released in January 2025, which aligns with the Cabinet Office's new dynamic assessment model. The update also highlights the planned Exercise PEGASUS, a UK-wide pandemic response exercise scheduled to take place between September and November 2025, and the launch of the UK Resilience Academy (UKRA) in April 2025 to strengthen emergency preparedness capabilities. From April 2026, the Cabinet Office will establish expert panels through the UKRA to scrutinise whole-system civil emergency planning.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published its updated guidance on operating principles for night shelters, effective from 3 January 2025. The revised document reflects evolving best practices in supporting rough sleepers, incorporating lessons learned from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Key updates include a continued emphasis on providing single room accommodation where feasible, whilst acknowledging that communal models may be necessary in certain circumstances. The guidance outlines public health principles for shelter operations, including ventilation, hygiene practices and vaccination support. It also stresses the importance of partnership working with local authorities and health services and provides recommendations for maintaining high-quality shelter provision with a focus on outcomes and strong governance.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognised the potential of using AI and machine learning (ML) in the drug development life cycle, for example when selecting suitable patient populations for clinical trials and predicting patient outcomes. AI/ML predictive models are also able to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from the treatment or to react adversely, assisting in demonstrating the effectiveness of a drug. For example, for the first time the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) used AI/ML for a regulatory decision, in this case to identify a population who will likely benefit from a drug therapy in relation to an Emergency Use Authorization of the drug, Anakinra, in its treatment of coronavirus (COVID-19) patients.

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence analysis: On 27 August 2024, a new Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement was signed by NHS Resolution and representatives of claimant medical negligence solicitors and injured patients. The new Agreement replaces the earlier COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol 2020 (COVID-19 Protocol), which enabled claims to continue to be progressed efficiently during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The Agreement builds on the earlier Protocol by outlining ways in which parties should work cooperatively. It also acknowledges the importance, to injured patients and bereaved families, of ensuring that lessons are learned from patient safety incidents and that similar events are not repeated. Suzanne Farg, director at Fieldfisher, considers the main points to note from the updated protocol.

Commercial analysis: This case concerned the interpretation of an equity commitment letter (ECL) governed by English law under which the defendant had agreed to provide €93m to its indirect subsidiary for it to purchase a hotel business from a third party. The share purchase agreement governing the underlying transaction never completed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and is now the subject of Spanish litigation. The parties asked the High Court to consider seven issues of interpretation of the ECL including whether the defendant was obliged to put its indirect subsidiary in funds in circumstances where there was a dispute regarding the underlying transaction. The High Court found against the defendant on all issues bar one. Written by Emily Woodwark, associate, Payne Hicks Beach.

The European Commission has announced that its EU age verification app is technically ready and will soon be made available for citizens to use when accessing online platforms. Users will be able to verify their age by setting up the app using a passport or ID, based on the same model as the Commission's coronavirus (COVID-19) certificate app. The system is intended to meet privacy standards by enabling age verification without disclosing other personal information. It is designed to operate anonymously, without tracking users, to function across devices and to be fully open source. Seven Member States—France, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Ireland—plan to integrate the app into their national digital wallets. The announcement forms part of the Commission's wider efforts to enforce EU rules on children's online safety, with Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, noting that platforms can rely on this age verification solution.