The taxpayer had a domicile of origin in England but her family had moved to Guernsey. She remained in England principally for the purpose of completing her education. She intended when she had finished her training and had some experience working in this country to return to Guernsey, where she spent part of her time. The court considered the effect on domicile of a person owning properties in two jurisdictions.
Held: The Special Commissioners were entitled to say that her chief residence was in England and that, as the appellant had her chief residence in England, which was her domicile of origin, she had not acquired a domicile of choice in Guernsey. It was premature to say that she was domiciled in Guernsey. A person who retains a residence in his domicile of origin can acquire a domicile of choice in a new country only if the residence established in that country is his chief residence.
Hoffmann J spoke of the Plummer case: ‘Speaking for myself, while I find the contrast between an inhabitant and a person casually present useful to describe the minimum quality of residence which must be taken up in a new country before a domicile there can be acquired, the concept of being an inhabitant seems to me less illuminating in cases of dual or multiple residence such as the present.
Clearer guidance is to be found in a well-known passage in the speech of Lord Westbury in Udny v Udny:
‘Domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place, with an intention of continuing to reside there for an unlimited time.’
I infer from this sentence, which was quoted by the commissioners, that a person who retains a residence in his domicile of origin can acquire a domicile of choice in a new country only if the residence established in that country is his chief residence. The commissioners therefore asked themselves whether the taxpayer had made her grandmother’s house in Guernsey ‘her chief place of residence’. They regarded this question, in my judgment rightly, as being the same as whether ‘in the sense in which the term is used in this context’ the taxpayer had become an inhabitant of Guernsey.’
Judges:
Hoffmann J
Citations:
[1987] STC 698, [1988] 1 WLR 292
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Criticised – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Plummer HL 1-Nov-1979
Although transactions were integrated as part of a preconceived scheme which was commercially marketed and that had no other conceivable purpose than that of saving surtax, the construction of the statute compelled the acceptance of a fiscal result . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Cited – Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.261303
