Mr D Farquhar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 May 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 231 (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 Mr Farquhar was UK resident for 2003/04–2005/06 and which method should be used to calculate his average annual UK visits while employed offshore. HMRC applied the IR20/centre‑based tax‑year calculation and concluded his average exceeded the relevant threshold; the appellant relied on a South Wales/H T S L days‑average method and a claimed legitimate expectation of consistent departmental treatment. The Tribunal found, as a fact, his non‑UK employment began 25 August 2003, that the IR20 approach produced averages exceeding the threshold even allowing split‑year treatment, and dismissed the appeal.
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: medium
The Tribunal treated the statutory/test calculation (as reflected in IR20) as governing the residence assessment where the period of non‑UK employment spans parts of tax years, and indicated that extra‑statutory concessions such as ESC A11 and local departmental practices amount to departures from the strict legal position which the Tribunal cannot itself give effect to as a statutory right.
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 recorded that consistent HMRC South Wales practice might give rise to a legitimate expectation and expressed willingness to have found for the appellant on that basis; it also suggested that issues of unfair departmental practice are more appropriately addressed by the Revenue Adjudicator or possibly by judicial review rather than by the Tribunal granting concessionary relief.
Warning
The chunk contains extensive repetition and some formatting artefacts which make extraction of distinct passages harder; reader should be aware of duplicated material. The provided notes contain repetition and some formatting artefacts; they may be incomplete in relation to the full judgment.