Individuals leaving the UK

This subtopic deals with the income tax, capital gains tax (CGT) and inheritance tax (IHT) implications for emigrating individuals. Fundamental to this is the statutory meaning of UK residence brought into effect by the Finance Act 2013 (FA 2013) with effect from 6 April 2013. Non-tax implications are also addressed.

Practice Note: Residence of individuals Q&As brings together a wide range of Q&As based on real-life situations covering tax and non-tax matters.

Leaving the UK—non-tax implications

For an individual considering leaving the UK, they should give proper consideration to both the tax and non-tax implications of the proposal. The laws and customs of the proposed country may differ, often radically, from those of the UK. It is important that they obtain the best possible information and advice before making a final decision. Practical matters include healthcare, retirement issues and issues relating to property ownership. Intending emigrants also need to consider the repercussions if issues interfere with their intention and actions taken to become UK non-resident which at a later date may need to be reversed by the individual becoming UK resident again.

The

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—5 February 2026

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re Organ; House v Helme, in which the court gave guidance on the removal of executors for misconduct and their right to an indemnity; (2) University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AB (By his Litigation Friend), a case which considers what tools the Court of Protection has at its disposal to ensure compliance with best interests decisions made on behalf of P; (3) Bristol City Council v CC (By his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), where the court allowed disclosure of closed material concerning CC who lacked capacity; (4) Hackett v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Upper Tribunal (Tax) held that compensation payments were taxable as income; (5) Smith v Campbell, in which the court set out a detailed analysis of legal authorities and evidence relating to several potential grounds for the removal of trustees; (6) Kearney v HMRC, a decision of the FTT which found that HMRC had validly assessed the taxpayer to CGT and penalties as a UK resident based on pre-2013 rules; and (7) analysis of the International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/740 which updated the UK’s rules for Automatic Exchange of Information.

Question of the week: Can executors pay inheritance to a beneficiary who is subject to a debt relief order? Are there are any additional precautions the executors should take?

This Q&A considers the situation where a beneficiary is under a debt relief order and sets out who has the obligation to report this.

FTT finds HMRC validly assessed taxpayer to CGT and penalties as a UK resident (Kearney v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Kearney v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the taxpayer was a UK-resident for tax purposes, applying the common law principles applicable before the introduction of the statutory residence test in 2013. The FTT also upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments and, subject to a reduction in quantum, penalty determinations.

FTT decides joint and several liability notice is a criminal charge and it has jurisdiction to consider public law arguments (Hall v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In this interlocutory decision, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) in Hall ruled in favour of Mr Hall (H), a director of insolvent companies issued with a joint and several liability notice (JSLN) in the amount of £1.68m under the phoenixism provision in para 3 of Sch 13 to the Finance Act 2020 (FS 2020). The FTT held that a JSLN constitutes a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so that HMRC bears the burden of proving its prima facie validity and was therefore directed by the FTT to serve its evidence and skeleton arguments first. The FTT also refused HMRC’s application to strike out three grounds of appeal challenging the proportionality of the JSLN regime and the rationality of HMRC’s decision to issue the notice, holding that it has jurisdiction to consider such public law arguments and, in respect of two of the grounds, although they were weak, they were arguable and should be heard.