UT/2023/000012 - [2024] UKUT 00280 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/000012 - [2024] UKUT 00280 (TCC)

Fecha: 18-Jun-2024

Comparison of position before and during the Relevant Period

Comparison of position before and during the Relevant Period

72.

Ms Shaw’s final contention under this ground of appeal was that the FTT failed to carry out an adequate comparative analysis of Mr McCabe’s pattern of life before and after 4 April 2006, the date on which he left the UK, and that it instead considered the pattern of his life during the Relevant Period in absolute terms.

73.

We disagree. There is nothing in the Decision to support the suggestion that the FTT erred in this regard. The FTT specifically stated that it was adopting a comparative approach. Having reminded itself of the test in Glyn and Gaines-Cooper, §189 of the Decision referred back to the facts found regarded Mr McCabe’s life before 4 April 2007. At §§191–201, the FTT then considered the position during the Relevant Period, analysing and assessing the detailed evidence set out earlier in the Decision, leading to the conclusion at §204 that there had been “a change in the pattern of Mr McCabe’s life” after 4 April 2006 but “not such as to constitute a sufficient loosening of ties with the UK.” The discussion at §§205–210 of specific aspects of the FTT’s analysis which supported that conclusion also clearly addressed the situation before as compared to the situation during the Relevant Period.

74.

Ms Shaw’s only challenge could, therefore, be to the FTT’s evaluation of the different aspects of the evidence. Again, however, absent an Edwards v Bairstow challenge, that is not a matter of law which is susceptible to challenge in this appeal.

75.

We therefore dismiss this ground of appeal.