In Aubrey Weis v HMRC [2025] TC09463, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that a UK-born Rabbi, who resided in the UK for the majority of his life, raised a family in the UK and developed a business in the UK, was UK-domiciled for tax purposes.
Rabbi Weis (RW) was born in the UK. Both of his parents had arrived in the UK from Europe before he was born.
- Except for a short period of three years which he spent in Israel, RW had resided in the UK his entire life and had brought his own family up in the UK.
- RW had an extensive property business in the UK. Although a valuation was not provided, the estimate of its value was around £1 billion, with an annual rental income of approximately £50 million.
- He had no nationality in any other country but claimed that he intended to make Israel his permanent home.
- RW submitted Self Assessment tax returns based on the view that he was Non-domiciled for tax purposes. He applied the Remittance basis, meaning that only income remitted to the UK was taxable.
- HMRC considered RW to be UK domiciled for 2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2015-16 and, following an enquiry, issued closure notices taxing him on his worldwide income as it arose. The tax due amounted to £6,322,881.
Both parties agreed that RW's domicile status had to be determined based on the following issues:
- Did RW's father acquire a domicile of choice in the UK before RW was born?
- During RW's absence from the UK, did he acquire a domicile of choice in Israel?
- Prior to residency in Israel, if his domicile of origin was not England and he did acquire a domicile of choice in Israel, did he subsequently acquire a domicile of choice in England after he returned from Israel?
HMRC's arguments included:
- RW's father abandoned his domicile of origin when he moved and settled in the UK.
- RW's father had resided in the UK for 11 years before RW was born, studied in the UK and married his wife there.
- Sufficient evidence was provided to be satisfied that RW's father had chosen the UK as his definite home at that time.
- During his period in Israel, RW was a minor and incapable of forming the necessary intention to acquire a domicile of choice.
- There had not been evidence provided that proved RW had any intention of making Israel his permanent home: if he had the intentions he had purported, he would have moved there before.
- RW had remained in the UK as this was where his home was and where he had settled.
RW argued:
- There was no evidence to suggest his father intended to make the UK his home indefinitely, particularly since he left the UK and did not reside there for the last 23 years of his life.
- On that basis, RW contended that his domicile of origin had always been outside the UK.
- On returning from Israel, RW contends it was always his intention to return to Israel, but a series of events prevented him from doing so.
- Despite this series of events finalising, he was subsequently detained in the UK due to ill health.
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that:
- RW's father had acquired a domicile of choice in England before RW was born.
- He had not settled in any country for any significant period before arriving in the UK.
- The UK then became his settled home; he had a stable job, attended a synagogue and became naturalised in the UK in 1948.
- Despite a later move abroad, the FTT believed there was an intention to return to the UK due to business interests which were still generating income to support him.
- Moving to a new destination does not conclude that place as a domicile of choice, but reflection of the life thereafter provides the evidence required to consider domicile of choice.
- RW himself was incapable of forming any intention to make Israel his domicile of choice during the three years he spent there, as he was legally a minor.
- There was insufficient evidence to otherwise prove he intended to make Israel his home.
- RW had settled in the UK, becoming leader of a thiriving Jewish community and establishing a business which presented a compelling picture of someone settled in the UK.
RW had a domicile of origin in the UK and this was not subsequently displaced by a domicile of choice elsewhere.
The appeal was dismissed.
Useful guides on this topic
Client briefing on Reform to the Non-Domiciled Individuals' regime
It was proposed at Spring Budget 2024 that the non-domicile tax regime and current version of the Remittance Basis will be abolished on 5 April 2025 and replaced with a new regime. We look at the latest proposals.
Non-domicile: Rules from 5 April 2025
What are the changes to the 'non-dom' regime? What does this mean for non-doms currently using the remittance basis? How will Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax be affected by the changes?
SRT: Statutory Residence Test
What is the statutory residency test? Why is it important and how does it work?
Non-Resident Trusts
When is a trust non-resident? What are the UK tax implications of a non-resident trust? What are the UK tax implications for any beneficiaries? What are the UK administrative requirements for a non-resident trust?
External links
