Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

Do 2 days matter? RBC

Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:39 pm

Do 2 days matter? RBC

Postby alexbud » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:41 pm

I lived in the UK since 19 November 2009 and on 19 November 2016, just 2 days before my 7th anniversary I moved out of the UK and haven't been in the country since then. I was a permanent resident in the country for 7 years minus 2 days. I would like to see if I can still use the remittance basis in my 2016/2017 tax return without paying the Remittance Basic Charge. Normally the Remittance Basic Charge is not paid when someone has been a UK resident for less than 7 years. Since it is only 2 days short of 7 years, I am wondering how the HMRC will view this situation.

Posts: 6803
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Do 2 days matter? RBC

Postby maths » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:39 am

The test is one of residence in a tax year.

Thus for tax year 16/17 if you were resident for at least 7 of the previous 9 tax years pre 16/17 hen the RBC is payable for 16/17.

You do not measure time in the UK as you suggest.

Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:09 pm

Re: Do 2 days matter? RBC

Postby darthblingbling » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:11 pm

It seems you will have spent more than 183 days in the UK by November 2016, so you would automatically be considered a tax resident for 2017.

You may or may not have been a tax resident in 2010, the rules were a lot more vague back then.

I'd say a lot of the clients I've dealt with who ask about the remittance based system automatically consider it the better option, when in reality they'd be better off declaring income as it arises. Not saying this is the case for you, but you should get some proper tax planning done.
Trainee tax professional working for a CTA/ATT qualified professional
EDA Professional Services - UK/US Tax experts

Return to “Income Tax”