Non-domiciliaries and the remittance basis

FORTHCOMING CHANGE:Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime At Autumn Budget 2024 on 30 October 2024, the Labour government confirmed that it will proceed with plans of the former Conservative administration to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, to commence on 6 April 2025. The government also confirmed its intention to move to a residence-based regime for inheritance tax. The changes will also affect 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, including draft legislation published with Autumn Budget 2024, see: Autumn Budget 2024—Private Client analysis — International and Autumn Budget 2024 (paras 2.56 and 5.51), OOTLAR (para 1.3) and TIIN: Reforming the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals.

This subtopic focuses on non-UK domiciliaries (non-doms) who are UK resident and their eligibility to claim the remittance basis of taxation.. For guidance on the tax position of non-doms who are resident outside the UK, see the Non-resident individuals—overview.

Introduction to the remittance

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—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

Privy Council rules BVI company shares are not immovable property (Al Thani v Al Thani)

Private Client analysis: In a decision which will come as a relief to private individuals who own shares in BVI companies, the Privy Council has decided that section 245 of the BVI’s Business Companies Act 2004 does not have the effect of re-categorising shares as immovable property for the purposes of succession. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Supreme Court confirms application of immovables rule to English property

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Kireeva’s (Russian bankruptcy trustee’s) appeal to overturn the Court of Appeal’s’ decision regarding matters arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr Bedzhamov. Peter Declercq and Patrick Elliot, partners at DCQ Legal (who acted for Ms Kireeva), discuss the implications of the judgment.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.