"Inside IR35" but I am not UK tax-resident

[zerosum]

Obvously if the agency simply pays the him without deducting National Insurance and he doesn't have a tax code then this is no problem, no tax to pay, no correspondence with the Inland Revenue is necessary. Unfortunately the agency might feel obliged to do this so he will end up registered for tax by the agency simply to get the contract. They won't simply refund it without some sort of basic proof of non-residency.

That makes sense. But they cannot demand a certificate of tax residence elsewhere, even though it would make things easier. It is possible -- even if probably inadvisable -- to be not tax resident anywhere. If you haven't spent a single day in the UK, and have evidence to that effect, the rest of the SRT does not even need to be looked at and HMRC could not legitimately withhold a refund. Otherwise why even bother postulating automatic tests and naming them that way.

[Lance]

That makes sense. But they cannot demand a certificate of tax residence elsewhere, even though it would make things easier. It is possible -- even if probably inadvisable -- to be not tax resident anywhere. If you haven't spent a single day in the UK, and have evidence to that effect, the rest of the SRT does not even need to be looked at and HMRC could not legitimately withhold a refund. Otherwise why even bother postulating automatic tests and naming them that way.

You sure it’s possible to not be tax resident anywhere?
I am pretty sure that’s not true.

And if it was, and the OP could prove that then HMRC would take the tax anyway as there’s no double tax treaty with ‘nowhere’.

The agency aren’t gonna be interested. They’ll just handle like any normal use case or they’ll bin the contract. It’s not worth their while ballsing around for one pain in the arse contractor.

[BlasterBates]

That makes sense. But they cannot demand a certificate of tax residence elsewhere, even though it would make things easier. It is possible -- even if probably inadvisable -- to be not tax resident anywhere. If you haven't spent a single day in the UK, and have evidence to that effect, the rest of the SRT does not even need to be looked at and HMRC could not legitimately withhold a refund. Otherwise why even bother postulating automatic tests and naming them that way.

Sure you can provide all sorts of proof, but a simple confirmation from a foreign tax authority is worth an encyclopedia of alternative proof. If HMRC asks for proof and you provide none they'll simply keep the money and force you to take them to court. Of course you'll win but why make your life complicated.

[zerosum]

You sure it’s possible to not be tax resident anywhere?
I am pretty sure that’s not true.

Of course it's possible, the problem is that it invites a nightmare of proof. Most HNWIs will simply go the route of taking residence in a zero-tax regime, or one that doesn't tax income from outside the country. Even in the absence of tax residence, most countries tax work you perform on their territory, regardless of source.

I think there's a failure to understand in this thread that what HMRC seeks to do is determine if you are tax-resident in the UK. To this end there is the statutory residence test. If you fail (or pass, according to your point of view) one of the automatic tests, nothing else needs to be evaluated and you are not tax resident. There is therefore no provision for clawing tax back. The extent to which they are then going to spend time and valuable resources figuring out where you *were* resident and where you should be paying taxes is highly debatable.

Where I think the confusion comes in is if you *are* resident in the UK, *and* resident somewhere else. This is altogether more of a pickle and where BlasterBates seems to be coming from in his comments, based on the particular circumstances he experienced (but which do not apply in all cases). For example, in this situation, there is a tiebreaker provision in most DTAs that you can be taxed on the basis of your citizenship, if all other proof you supply is inconclusive. In this situation I agree, tax residency certificates and anything else you can possibly think of are a good idea.

[zerosum]

Sure you can provide all sorts of proof, but a simple confirmation from a foreign tax authority is worth an encyclopedia of alternative proof. If HMRC asks for proof and you provide none they'll simply keep the money and force you to take them to court. Of course you'll win but why make your life complicated.

There are countries which will issue you with a tax residence certificate based on very few days indeed. But if you spent e.g. 60 days in that tax base and 150 days in a country with an aggressive tax authority, it's debatable how impressed they'll be. They'll want to know about centre of interests.

[BlasterBates]

There are countries which will issue you with a tax residence certificate based on very few days indeed. But if you spent e.g. 60 days in that tax base and 150 days in a country with an aggressive tax authority, it's debatable how impressed they'll be. They'll want to know about centre of interests.

Sure it might not be enough, but it often is. The OP has been in Poland for 2 years. All he needs is a confirmation from the client that he's remote and his last tax return from Poland and it should suffice.