![UT/2023/000012 - [2024] UKUT 00280 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Ground 1(b) – Application of the common law test of residence
Ground 1(b) – Application of the common law test of residence
Under this ground of appeal, Ms Shaw advanced a miscellany of points which she said showed that the FTT had erred in its understanding and application of the common law test of residence. Specifically, she contended that:
The FTT erred in the way it took into account days and part days when determining Mr McCabe’s presence in the UK.
The FTT did not properly assess the quality of Mr McCabe’s presence in the UK.
The FTT misapplied the concept of a “tie” in considering whether there was a substantial loosening of Mr McCabe’s ties to the UK.
The FTT failed to compare Mr McCabe’s situation before and during the Relevant Period when considering whether there was a distinct break in the pattern of his life in the UK.
We address each of these in turn.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Relevant law
- The test for residence
- The DTC and the tie-breaker provisions
- The FTT Decision
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 1(a) – Full time work abroad
- Ground 1(b) – Application of the common law test of residence
- The approach to counting days and part days in the UK
- The quality of Mr McCabe’s presence in the UK
- The concept of a “tie”
- Comparison of position before and during the Relevant Period
- Ground 2(a) – Permanent home in the UK
- The absence of legal rights to Deepdale
- Possession of Deepdale
- Whether Mr McCabe had chosen to give up his home at Deepdale
- Conclusions