The parties disputed the interpretation of a booklet issued by the Revenue (IR20) as it defined the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’. In particular the taxpayer complained of an unannounced change of practice made after they had arranged their lives relying upon IR20.
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Moses
Citations:
[2010] STC 860, [2010] STI 485, [2010] WTLR 681, [2010] BTC 198, [2010] EWCA Civ 83
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Davies and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 10-Jul-2008
The claimants said that they had ceased to be resident in the UK and therefore were no longer liable to be taxed here. . .
Cited – Davies and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Apr-2008
. .
Leave – Gaines-Cooper v Revenue and Customs CA 23-Oct-2008
Renewed application for permission to pursue a second appeal in order to challenge an order of Lewison J, dated 13 November 2007, upholding a decision of the Special Commissioners that the appellant was domiciled in England and Wales in the relevant . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Davies and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2011
The Revenue had published a booklet, IR20, setting out their approach to the interpretation of the phrases ‘residence’ and ‘ordinary residence’. The taxpayer said that this was a more generous definition than the statutory one, and that having acted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.400994
