A Taxpayer v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 March 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 133 (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 is an appeal against HMRC’s closure notice treating the Appellant as UK resident by counting days she spent in the UK caring for her twin sister and the sister’s two young children. The Tribunal construed paragraph 22(4) Schedule 45 purposively and found that the combination of caring responsibilities during a crisis amounted to “exceptional circumstances” that were beyond the Appellant’s control, prevented her leaving, and she intended to leave as soon as practicable. The disputed days were therefore disregarded and the appeal was allowed.
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 held that paragraph 22(4) of Schedule 45 must be read purposively and that its ordinary language should not be artificially narrowed (for example by excluding foreseeable events, moral or conscientious obligations, or care for a sibling). Exceptional circumstances may include moral/conscientious obligations to a close family member; the statutory conditions are cumulative and fact-specific, and a taxpayer may satisfy them if those circumstances were beyond their control, prevented departure, and they intended to leave as soon as practicable.
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 judgment noted (obiter) that the day-counting aim of the Statutory Residence Test is certainty but Parliament added para 22(4) to avoid injustice from rigid application; availability of means of travel (e.g. private jet) does not automatically negate being prevented from leaving; and lack of contemporaneous detailed diaries does not necessarily defeat a para 22(4) claim where the exceptional reason persisted.