Garside & Co LLP Chartered Accountants in London, Auditors, Tax Advisors, Business Advisors
  • Email
Call Now: 020 7439 1050
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Offers
  • Contact Us
    • New Client Application Forms
  • Services
    • Audit & Accounting
      • Accounting Services
      • Management Accounting
      • Forensic Accounting
      • VAT Returns
      • Audit & Assurance
      • Bookkeeping
      • Due Diligence
      • Cashflow & Profit Forecast
      • Online Accounting
    • Business Tax
      • Corporate Tax
      • Partnership Tax
      • Self Employed Tax
      • Subcontractors Returns
      • VAT
      • Tax Investigation Insurance
    • Business Consulting
      • Business Advisory
      • Business Support
      • Business Planning
    • Business Finance Advice
    • Company Formation
      • Company Secretarial
      • Company Incorporation
      • Business Start-Up
    • Corporate Finance
    • Payroll
    • Personal Financial Planning & Tax
    • QuickBooks Accounting
  • Resources
    • Useful Links
  • Bulletin Board
  • ShareFile Login
  • Quickbooks Login
    • ClearBooks Overview
Search the site...
Home» Tax » Robert Gaines-Cooper loses hearing at Supreme Court

Robert Gaines-Cooper loses hearing at Supreme Court

Posted by admin - October 19, 2011 - Tax

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that Gaines-Cooper was a resident of the UK despite spending most of his time in the Seychelles. The dispute is around IR20, which was the authority’s guidance on what constitutes residency for tax purposes.

Although Gaines-Cooper claims to have followed the guidance, HMRC and a number of court rulings found he retained strong links to the UK, which meant he was resident. The decision announced today was on a 4-1 split. The majority of Lord Justices found that even under a full reading of IR20, Gaines-Cooper was not resident. Paragraphs 2.1, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 of the document indicated that a claim for non-residency would generate a “multifactorial consideration” of an individual’s circumstances, the judges found. There was “insufficient evidence” that HMRC had departed from IR20 as a matter of settled practice, they added. The appelant’s evidence that HMRC had done so was “far too thin and equivocal”, they said.

The judges said that HMRC’s position on how to achieve non-residency “should have been much clearer” Lord Mance, who dissented, said it would be “remarkable” if there were a requirement for a distinct break when no such requirement was clearly expressed. The case has been cited by commentators as one of the catalysts for the statutory residency test, on which the government has just finished consulting.

For fresh ideas, new possibilities and a value driven service go to Garside & Co LLP Chartered Accountants in London.

Related posts:

  1. EU Court of Justice rule that UK’s compulsory retirement age is legal
  2. Bribery Act 2010

Categories

  • Accounts
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Tax

Recent Posts

  • Press Release Parliamentary Review

    December 10, 2018
  • Reporting Modern Slavery Act 2015

    December 10, 2018
  • CGT non dom rebasing

    December 10, 2018
  • Entrepreneurs Relief changes Budget 2018

    December 10, 2018

    Download Resources

    Access your free cashflow, forecasting, business planning and personal budgeting tools.

    Selling Your Business?

    Discover how saleable your business could be and find how quickly it might sell.

    Auditing & Accounting
    Business Tax
    Tax Investigations
    Business Advisory
    Company Secretarial

    Business Start-Up
    Corporate Finance
    Payroll & BACS
    Personal Financial Planning
    Personal Tax Planning

    • 020 7439 1050
    • Contact Us
      • Email
      • Twitter
      • Linkedin
    (c) 2013-2018 Garside & Co LLP | Terms of use | Privacy policy | Sitemap |