Company residency has become a contentious issue in the past decade, as HMRC attempts to defeat tax planning arrangements that benefit from non-residence. The latest decision in the First-tier Tribunal (Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd and Others v HMRC), after forensic review of the evidence, concludes that three Jersey companies were tax resident in the UK. This reflects the commercial reality that the tax planning occurred in the UK. However, the technical application of the central management and control rule is not convincing. We can expect an appeal and, in any event, there are many lessons to be learned.
Company residency has become a contentious issue in the past decade, as HMRC attempts to defeat tax planning arrangements that benefit from non-residence. The latest decision in the First-tier Tribunal (Development Securities (No. 9) Ltd and Others v HMRC), after forensic review of the evidence, concludes that three Jersey companies were tax resident in the UK. This reflects the commercial reality that the tax planning occurred in the UK. However, the technical application of the central management and control rule is not convincing. We can expect an appeal and, in any event, there are many lessons to be learned.