Ian Charles Strachan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 617 (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 case concerns Ian Strachan's challenge to HMRC discovery assessments for 2011–12 to 2015–16, principally whether he had acquired domiciles of choice in Connecticut or Massachusetts or retained an English domicile of origin, and whether HMRC's out-of-time discovery assessments for 2011–12 and 2012–13 were valid because any loss of tax was "brought about carelessly." The Tribunal found an English domicile of origin, rejected domiciles of choice in Connecticut and Massachusetts for the relevant years, held Mr Strachan was careless in not refreshing professional advice but that HMRC failed to prove that the carelessness caused the loss of tax for 2011–12 and 2012–13, and adjusted the tax liability accordingly.
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
A person with more than one residence does not acquire a domicile of choice without clear, cogent and compelling evidence that the disputed place is the person's sole or chief residence; this requires a multifactorial assessment of the character and quality of residence. For out-of-time discovery assessments under TMA s36, HMRC bears the burden throughout to prove both that the taxpayer (or agent) acted carelessly and that the carelessness brought about the loss of tax.
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 indicated that declarations of intention (such as to "end one's days" in a place) carry limited weight unless corroborated by conduct and actions consistent with that intention, and that later actions (including post-relevant-year moves for health reasons or retirement-age intentions) may be relevant to intention but must be weighed with appropriate cogency.