Domicile of individuals

STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime

Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025) which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements legislation to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, commencing on 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also replaces domicile as the key factor in establishing liability to inheritance tax. Other changes include amendment of the rules determining excluded property status, the abolition of protected settlements status of offshore trusts, and changes to overseas workday relief.

For information on these changes, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025.

Many questions concerning the personal status of an individual are governed by their personal law. The primary purpose of determining domicile is to identify this personal law by considering factors which connect the person to a territory with a distinctive legal system. Everyone must have a domicile.

The domicile of the individual

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Changizi v Changizi, where a non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate was liable for IHT under Re Ratcliffe; (2) Argyll and Bute Council v RF (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection refuses an application for recognition and enforcement of a Scottish Guardianship order; (3) Companies House launches a new voluntary identity verification service; (4) Armstrong v Bhattacharya, which highlights the importance of clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence and a consistent case in circumstances where a person wishes to demonstrate that ownership of a property differs to that which is recorded at HM Land Registry; (5) Tedford v Clarke, in which the court held that although a Will was badly drafted, it was not meaningless and was therefore capable of construction; and (6) review of the first century of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Supreme Court holds that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration (Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust)

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.

Non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate liable for IHT (Changizi v Changizi)

Tax analysis: In the case of Changizi v Changizi and others, the English estate of a testator was left (after a deed of variation) as to 5/6 to his surviving spouse and 1/6 to his son. The executors had also paid inheritance tax (IHT) on failed potentially exempt transfers (PETs) to the son for which they had a secondary liability. There had already been considerable litigation in this case and considerable costs had been run up which had been awarded against the son. After the costs and IHT due on the failed PETs, the son was in debt to the estate before any distribution was made.

HMRC lays out info exchange noncompliance penalties

Law360, London: HMRC on 14 April 2025 established the penalty structure for financial institutions that fail to comply with the UK's regulations on automatic exchange of information (AEOI), including monetary penalties for late filing and inaccurate reports.