Non-resident days in the UK

[D1DRL]

Good morning,

I am trying to find the correct answer on what is officially counted as a day in UK with regards to the 91/183 day non-residency test. All my previous attempts have failed miserably!

Initially my understanding from IR20 was that days of arrival and departure in/from UK were not normally counted towards stays in UK. Apparently this interpretation was changed in the new HMRC6 document from April 2008 and now it appears that each night spent in UK is counted as 1 day in UK towards the test.

Recently I read in an online newspaper that this latest interpretation in HMRC6 was supposed to have been challenged sometime in 2009 and could have changed again.

I would be very grateful if someone could please help by telling me if there is a final accepted rule in place in 2010 by which people can correctly calculate their days in UK?

Thanks and regards

[OvertheHill]

Guidance is given in section 2.2 of HMRC6.

If you are present in the UK at the end of the day (that is midnight) this will count as one day in the UK.

However, as the recent case relating to Robert Gaines-Cooper illustrates, thisis not the sole criteria used for determining whether or not you are resident in the UK for tax purposes.

To quote HMRC6, 'The number of days you are present in the country is only one of the factors to take into account when deciding your residency position.' HMRC will also look at the wider picture in relation to a number of factors so that the number of days that you stay out of the UK may not be sufficient to make you non-resident. 'There are other factors which might also make you resident in the UK, such as the location ofyour family, your property and your business or social connections.'

[D1DRL]

Thanks OvertheHill. Much appreciated.

Referring back to my original question. I note that HMRC6 was published in April 2009. According to the following Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article6493134.ece) dated 14 June 2009, the last paragraph states:

"A dispute with HMRC over whether or not arrival and departure dates should be included in the 90-day limit when considering non-residency are to be investigated by a judicial review this month".

I was wondering if this judicial review had indeed taken place after the publication of HMRC6, and if it had, what was the outcome?

On a note about HMRC6. As a tax layperson I am finding this 80 page document extremely hard work! I'm on my 3rd run through and I am finding it as confusing and conflicting now as when I first picked it up. How on earth mere mortals are supposed to get the gist of it without bringing the fear of god into them totally beats me. I have to say there must be thousands of residents and non-residents alike who would say shame on the Inland Revenue for painting such an poor picture of what is what and what should be. In my view the British public deserve better than this unclear gobbledygook. Anyone over there heard of simple plain English?
I am sure I will be posting my next question soon.
Thanks and regards

[confusedaussie]

On a note about HMRC6. As a tax layperson I am finding this 80 page document extremely hard work! I'm on my 3rd run through and I am finding it as confusing and conflicting now as when I first picked it up. How on earth mere mortals are supposed to get the gist of it without bringing the fear of god into them totally beats me. I have to say there must be thousands of residents and non-residents alike who would say shame on the Inland Revenue for painting such an poor picture of what is what and what should be. In my view the British public deserve better than this unclear gobbledygook. Anyone over there heard of simple plain English?
I am sure I will be posting my next question soon.
Thanks and regards

Couldn't agree more.

I particularly like this part on page 53 :

More information on the
UK tax liability of people
who have been
temporarily non-resident
in the UK can be found
in part 5 of this guidance
– see 5.1.5.

Unfortunately 5.1.5 doesn't actually exists. It goes 5.1, 5.1.1 then 5.2

You would think that someone would proof-read the thing....