Residence of individuals

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

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 Practice Note: A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26

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

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the enactment of Finance Act 2026 on 18 March 2026, (2) News Analysis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC, (3) News Analysis on the UT’s decision in Putney Power Limited on the issue of whether the appellants had begun to trade by the relevant date for EIS relief purposes, (4) new HMRC guidance on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax reporting software, and (5) News Analysis on the FTT’s decision in Countrywide Partners Limited to uphold a penalty for failure to comply with a stop notice issued under the promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS) rules.

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

FTT upholds £1m penalty for stop notice breach (Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) upheld HMRC’s £1m penalty on the taxpayer for breach of a stop notice under section 236A of the Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014), holding that the appellant continued to promote the arrangements by organising and managing them (including issuing payslips and making payments) for existing users.

Court of Appeal upholds UT decision disallowing amortisation debits (Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Upper Tribunal (UT)’s decision that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC.

View Tax by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal

If a beneficiary signs a deed of disclaimer of their share of an estate and the estate pays their legal fees, will that count as a PET against their estate?A disclaimer is the refusal of a gift prior to acceptance. The refusal of the gift must take place before the beneficiary accepts any benefit

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of