Hankinson v. Revenue & Customs [2010] STI 1368: Affirming UK Residency and Validity of Discovery Assessment for Capital Gains Tax

Hankinson v. Revenue & Customs [2010] STI 1368

Introduction

Hankinson v. Revenue & Customs ([2010] STI 1368) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) on December 29, 2009. The appellant, Derek William Hankinson, contested a discovery assessment made by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) pertaining to income tax and capital gains tax for the fiscal year 1998-99. Central to the appeal were disputes regarding Mr. Hankinson's ordinary residence status in the UK, dual residency considerations under the double taxation agreement with the Netherlands, and the validity of the discovery assessment executed by HMRC.

Summary of the Judgment

The tribunal meticulously examined the factual matrix surrounding Mr. Hankinson's residency and employment circumstances during 1998-99. It concluded that Mr. Hankinson remained both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK for the specified tax year. The assessment by HMRC was upheld as valid, primarily because the evidence did not substantiate Mr. Hankinson's claim of being a non-resident under the conditions stipulated by UK tax law and relevant precedents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming HMRC's position and the applicability of capital gains tax on Mr. Hankinson's gains.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several landmark cases that have shaped the understanding of residency and tax obligations. Notably:

  • Lysaght v IRC (1928) 13 TC 511: Established that residence entails dwelling permanently or for a considerable time.
  • Levene v IRC (1928) 13 TC 486: Highlighted that mere physical presence does not equate to residency if not accompanied by settled purpose.
  • Reed v Clark [1985] STC 323: Emphasized the need for a distinct break in one's pattern of life to cease residency.
  • Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] STC 1665: Reinforced the importance of continuity and substantial connections in determining residency.
  • Combe [1932] 17 TC 405: Clarified that occasional residence abroad does not negate UK residency unless accompanied by a significant change in life patterns.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's stance that residency is determined by a combination of physical presence, continuity of domestic connections, and the intent behind one's movements.

Legal Reasoning

The tribunal's legal reasoning hinged on dissecting Mr. Hankinson's claims against the backdrop of existing tax laws and case law precedents. Key points include:

  • Definition of Residency: Residency is not solely based on physical presence but also on the individual's settled purpose and connections to the country.
  • Ordinary Residency: Mr. Hankinson maintained substantial ties to the UK, including ownership of a permanent home (Foxlea Manor), ongoing involvements with Bison UK, and familial connections, which solidified his status as ordinarily resident.
  • Full-time Employment Abroad: The tribunal scrutinized the nature of Mr. Hankinson's employment with Monoliet in the Netherlands, finding it inconsistent with the criteria for full-time employment as outlined in IR20 and relevant case law.
  • Discovery Assessment Validity: The tribunal found that HMRC had a valid basis to make the discovery assessment, as it was supported by evidence beyond mere suspicion, including discrepancies in Mr. Hankinson's tax returns and employment records.

The tribunal adopted a holistic approach, weighing the duration and nature of Mr. Hankinson's stay in the Netherlands against his enduring links with the UK. The conclusion was that there was no substantial break in his pattern of life that would justify a change in residency status.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria for altering residency status for tax purposes in the UK. It serves as a cautionary tale for taxpayers attempting to redefine their residency status through contractual or temporary arrangements without genuine intent or substantial changes in their living and working patterns. Future cases will likely reference this decision when evaluating the legitimacy of residency claims and the validity of discovery assessments by tax authorities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Residency: Determines where an individual is subject to tax obligations. It's not just about where you live, but also about where your life is centered, considering factors like employment, family, and property.

Ordinary Residency: A higher standard than mere residency. It implies that the UK is the individual's habitual home, where they generally reside and conduct their daily life.

Discovery Assessment: HMRC's power to reassess an individual's tax liability if new information comes to light that was not previously considered.

Double Taxation Agreement: A treaty between two countries to prevent individuals from being taxed twice on the same income.

IR20: HMRC's guidance on determining residency status for tax purposes, outlining factors like full-time employment abroad and the nature of the individual's ties to the UK.

Conclusion

The Hankinson v. Revenue & Customs [2010] STI 1368 judgment reaffirms the robust framework governing tax residency in the UK. By meticulously analyzing the interplay between physical presence, employment status, and enduring domestic connections, the tribunal underscored the importance of genuine intent and substantial alterations in one's lifestyle when contesting residency status for tax purposes. This case serves as a critical reference point for both taxpayers and tax authorities, emphasizing the need for accurate and comprehensive disclosures in tax dealings to uphold the integrity of the tax system.

Case Details

Year: 2009
Court: First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

Attorney(S)

Robin Mathew QC and Emily Gillett, counsel, instructed by Cowgill Holloway, for the AppellantIngrid Simler QC and Akash Nawbatt, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

Comments