Print article
Author
Article:
The recent First-tier Tribunal decision in Griffin v HMRC has generated considerable attention, not least because it concerns Sir John Griffin, the founder of Addison Lee, and an alleged tax liability reported to exceed £20 million. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that Sir John was domiciled in England throughout the relevant period and therefore unable to access the remittance basis for his foreign income and gains.
At one level, the decision is unsurprising. The Tribunal found that England was where Sir John had established his home, raised his family, built his business, accumulated his wealth and organised his personal and professional life. Although he had a strong emotional attachment to Ireland, the Tribunal considered that this never developed into a sufficiently definite intention to make Ireland his permanent home.
Yet for advisers, the most interesting aspect of the case may be what it does not tell us.
The problem with learning from Tribunal cases
A recurring feature of domicile litigation is that the cases which reach Tribunal are often not representative of well-advised taxpayers.
The strongest domicile cases tend never to see a courtroom. Taxpayers who obtain specialist advice, gather contemporaneous evidence, regularly review their position and maintain detailed records are often able either to satisfy HMRC during an enquiry or avoid challenge altogether.
By contrast, the cases selected for litigation are frequently those where evidence is weak, advice was not taken, or historic assumptions were allowed to continue without review. As a result, there can be surprisingly limited lessons to draw from some Tribunal decisions beyond the obvious conclusion that poor facts make poor cases.
That appears to be true here. The Tribunal’s reasoning largely involved applying long-established domicile principles to a factual matrix that, on the face of the reported judgment, offered relatively little evidential support for the proposition that Sir John retained an Irish domicile or intended ultimately to settle there permanently.
Domicile has not disappeared
Some commentators may view the decision as marking the end of an era, given the abolition of the traditional non-domicile regime from 6 April 2025.
That would be a mistake.
Although domicile has largely ceased to be the primary connecting factor for UK income tax and capital gains tax purposes, it remains highly relevant in several important contexts.
Historic domicile positions remain open
First, domicile remains relevant when considering deemed UK domiciled individuals who left the UK before 6 April 2025 and want certainty over their inheritance tax “tail” (the period during which their worldwide estate remains within the scope of UK inheritance tax). Those who can establish that they were non-UK domiciled at the time they left the UK before 6 April 2025, only have a tail of three years and do not fall within the new long-term resident test which encompasses any individual who has been resident in the UK for at least ten out of the 20 previous tax years.
Many historic enquiries, claims and disclosures continue to turn on domicile status for pre-2025 tax years. Given that some of the UK’s wealthiest taxpayers have in the past relied on non-UK domiciled status and have recently left the UK, it is easy to see why HMRC would continue to focus on this point.
The Temporary Repatriation Facility
Secondly, domicile continues to matter for individuals who wish to benefit from the Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF).
The TRF offers qualifying taxpayers the time-limited opportunity to remit certain historic foreign income and gains at reduced tax rates, currently 12% for this tax year and 15% next year (for the final year). Eligibility and the scope of relief can depend upon an individual’s previous remittance basis and non-domicile status, meaning domicile concepts have not disappeared entirely from the analysis.
Opening up a domicile enquiry (as in the Griffin case) can lead to the historic challenge of previous remittance basis claims, jeopardising significant amounts of tax the individual assumed has already been saved. With the abolition of the domicile from income tax and capital gains tax legislation, it would be easy to see why some individuals would relax the connections they had previously maintained to the place of their domicile. However, this could lead to HMRC questioning the veracity and depth of the previous domicile links and evidence. An experienced tax adviser can assist clients with mitigating these types of risks.
Offshore trusts and excluded property
Thirdly, domicile will remain central whenever HMRC seeks to challenge the excluded property status of offshore trusts.
Many offshore trust structures were established on the basis that the settlor was non-UK domiciled prior to 31 October 2024. Where HMRC successfully challenges that assumption, the consequences can be profound, affecting inheritance tax exposure and potentially the wider UK tax treatment of trust structures and their underlying assets.
Given the substantial tax at stake, it would be surprising if HMRC did not continue to pursue domicile cases involving offshore trusts and high-value excluded property planning.
Estate tax treaties
Finally, domicile retains an important role under certain inheritance and estate tax treaties.
The UK-India Estate Duty Treaty is perhaps the most prominent example. The treaty protection remains unaffected despite the current rules relating to long-term residents for inheritance tax. This gives individuals domiciled in a region of India the opportunity to protect their non-UK situated assets from the 40% inheritance tax charge on death if they undertake relevant planning.
The real message from Griffin
The true significance of Griffin is therefore not that domicile litigation is disappearing. Rather, it serves as a reminder that domicile remains a deeply fact-sensitive area where contemporaneous evidence remains paramount.
For decades, courts have consistently distinguished between a person’s emotional attachment to a country and a genuine, evidenced intention to make that country their permanent home. The Tribunal’s decision simply reinforces that distinction.
Taxpayers who rely or have relied on domicile-based planning should ensure they have obtained adequate advice to support their position and to lower their risk of challenge. Unfortunately, domicile enquiries are lengthy, expensive and due to the highly sensitive nature of facts that need to be established, are often incredibly intrusive. In short, best to be avoided.