Domicile and remittance

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime

At Autumn Budget 2024 on 30 October 2024, the Labour government confirmed that it will proceed with plans of the former Conservative administration to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, to commence on 6 April 2025. The government also confirmed its intention to move to a residence-based regime for inheritance tax. The changes will also affect 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, including draft legislation published with Autumn Budget 2024, see: Autumn Budget 2024—Private Client analysis—International, Autumn Budget 2024—reforming the taxation of non-doms, Autumn Budget 2024 (paras 2.56 and 5.51), Autumn Budget 2024: Overview of tax legislation and rates (para 1.3) and Policy paper: Reforming the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals .

Abolition of domicile and remittance as bases of taxation

From 6 April 2025, the concept of domicile as a relevant connecting factor in the UK tax system will be replaced

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 Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—26 June 2025

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in HMRC v Dolphin Drilling, (2) confirmation that the PISCES stamp tax exemption Regulations are to come into force on 3 July 2025 and (3) News Analyses on previously reported decisions Osmond and Allen v HMRC (on main purpose under ITA 2007, s 687), Smart v HMRC (on ‘receiving or entitled’ to income), Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd v HMRC (on VAT assessment time limits) and BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC (on the refusal of HMRC’s case management decisions permission to appeal application).

Supreme Court clarifies tax rules for oil contractors and defines ‘incidental to another use’ (Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Dolphin Drilling Ltd)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Dolphin Drilling’s appeal, ruling that the hire cap on tax deductions should apply to the Borgsten Dolphin vessel. The Court held that the vessel’s accommodation services were not ‘incidental to’ its drilling operations, making it a ‘relevant asset’ under section 356LA(3) of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010).

FTT dismisses appeal finding that taxpayer was ‘receiving or entitled’ to income (Smart v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Smart v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against assessments and a closure notice charging income tax on distributions paid by entities forming part of a multinational group in one part of which the taxpayer was a partner in an LLP. The FTT held that he was the person ‘receiving or entitled’ to the income and rejected his alternative argument that it should act on the basis that a court would have ordered rescission of various documents under which the income was paid.

FTT refuses HMRC permission to appeal against case management decisions requiring explanation of £96m PAYE determinations (BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against two case management decisions (i) refusing HMRC’s request for further and better particulars from the taxpayer, and (ii) requiring HMRC to particularise in its statement of case how salaried members rules conditions were met for which partners, how the determinations of over £96m were calculated, and the basis for alleging deliberate or careless behaviour on the part of the taxpayer. HMRC now has the right to appeal directly to the UT for permission to appeal the decisions.