Derek William Hankinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 29 December 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 384 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Derek Hankinson was resident and ordinarily resident in the UK for 1998–99, whether the UK–Netherlands Treaty made him Dutch resident, and whether HMRC validly raised a discovery assessment. The Tribunal found he remained resident and ordinarily resident in the UK, was treaty‑resident in the UK (tie‑breaker favoured the UK), and that HMRC’s discovery assessment was valid; the assessment of £30,003,607.65 was confirmed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal’s decision rests on factual findings that continued maintenance of a substantial UK home, ongoing UK ties and visits, and only limited/non‑full‑time working for the Dutch employer supported continuing UK residence and ordinary residence despite periods abroad; and that a discovery assessment can be valid where the taxpayer’s return asserted full‑time foreign employment but contemporaneous evidence showed limited foreign work and the taxpayer’s conduct was negligent or objectively unaware, defeating s.29 safeguards.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted that HMRC guidance (IR20) and similar materials do not bind it though they are useful indicators; domestic Dutch tax rules or decrees may be relevant as evidence of Dutch tax treatment but do not override factual residence conclusions for treaty purposes; and practical comments were made about remote witness links and the desirability of telephone‑based video conferencing—these observations are non‑binding.