Gaines-Cooper wins right to appeal
The UK Supreme Court granted permission, on 26 July 2010, for Robert Gaines Cooper, the Seychelles-based British businessman at the centre at a long-running dispute with HM Customs & Revenue, to appeal the February 2010 decision by the Appeal Court not to allow his claim for judicial review of HMRC's treatment of his situation.
It is understood that Gaines-Cooper has given notice of his intention to pursue the appeal and the relevant procedural forms have been sent out to both sides. This marks the latest stage in the war of attrition between Gaines-Cooper and HMRC and will be the final stage unless the European courts can be persuaded to become involved.
The entrepreneur left Britain in 1976 but is being pursued for tax backdated to 1982 under an interpretation of UK tax law that could also be applied to other non-residents. The taxpayer, who has homes both in the UK and the Seychelles, had been contending in separate strands that he was non-domiciled and non-resident in the UK. At the first stage, the Special Commissioners found against him. The High Court found against him on appeal in relation to domicile.
The surviving case relates to the interpretation of HMRC's published guidance in booklet IR20 and the weight that can be placed upon it. Gaines-Cooper claims that since leaving the UK he has obeyed the rule that gives non-resident status and tax benefits to anyone who spends no more than 90 days a year in the country.
The Court of Appeal ruled in February that because Gaines-Cooper retained significant ties to the UK, HMRC was justified in denying him non-resident tax status and pursuing him for backdated tax on the grounds that he was still officially resident. The judges held that he had not made a "clean break", citing his family home in Henley-on-Thames, a UK-based collection of classic Rolls-Royces and trips to Ascot, and said there were therefore "ample" grounds on which HMRC could argue that he had been "resident and ordinarily resident in the UK".
Gaines-Cooper says he is not attempting to evade tax and that his companies pay tax in 16 countries, including the UK and US, Canada, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Germany, Spain, South Africa and Japan. He has already settled a previous HMRC claim on £30 million corporation tax from his business operations by paying an agreed amount of more than £600,000. But he wants to fight on because it raises important issues of clarity, consistency and fairness that are relevant to all taxpayers.
"The lack of transparency in the UK tax system means that no taxpayer can rely on guidance from the UK tax authorities," he said in a statement. "Moreover, HMRC's aggressive approach assumes guilt and leaves taxpayers with the inference that they have deliberately avoided tax. In my case, that is simply wrong."
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Newsvine
Digg