Globally Speaking – June 2026

Not a day goes by without some shift in the UK economic landscape. Against a backdrop of continual tax reform, evolving regulation, and an ever-present political undercurrent, stability can often feel elusive. As we look ahead to the remainder of 2026 — whilst awaiting the appointment of a seventh Prime Minister in just ten years followed by a newly formed cabinet — the question of certainty looms larger than ever.

For internationally mobile, high-net-worth individuals, this raises a critical consideration: what will the UK offer next? Beyond its historic appeal, how will any incoming government seek to attract individuals to live, work and spend time here — and in doing so, support the businesses, cultural institutions and heritage sectors that thrive when the economy is strong?
 
In this edition of Globally Speaking, we navigate around the political landscape and focus on practical insight, as our Private Client team shares what we are seeing across our international practice.

In this issue

  • International mobility and UK tax: planning for two critical milestones — for internationally mobile individuals, the UK’s new tax landscape is defined by timing. The end of the foreign income and gains regime and the onset of long-term residence for inheritance tax purposes can reshape tax exposure overnight. We explore how careful, forward-looking planning can make a material difference.
  • Potential changes to the taxation of Limited Liability Companies in the UK — proposed reforms to the UK tax treatment of US Limited Liability Companies could address long-standing double taxation issues, potentially making the UK a more attractive destination for internationally mobile investors.
  • Goodbye cards, hello codes: the shift to UK eVisas explained — cards and stamps are giving way to digital records as the UK moves to eVisas. The new system offers a more streamlined approach to proving immigration status, but requires individuals to actively manage and demonstrate their rights online
  • Wide or narrow: what role does the protector play in an offshore trust? — the recent Privy Council decision in A and others v C and others has brought welcome clarity to a much-debated question in trust law: what role does a protector play when trustee decisions require their consent, but the trust deed is silent on how that consent power should be exercised? The ruling is likely to have significant implications for offshore trust practice and highlights the importance of carefully drafted protector provisions.  
  • Update on the UK’s Trust Registration Service and Register of Overseas Entities — recent reforms and proposed changes will significantly expand disclosure obligations for offshore structures with UK connections, creating greater transparency. Trustees and advisers should act now to understand the shifting landscape and prepare for increased scrutiny.

Jurisdiction Focus: Switzerland

Switzerland continues to be a very popular relocation destination for internationally mobile UHNW families. Long associated with discretion, privacy, safety and stability, it offers a highly attractive proposition for UHNW individuals and families who are looking to relocate for lifestyle and/or tax reasons.

A key driver of inbound interest is Switzerland’s highly competitive tax framework for UHNW individuals. This includes the following: 

  • The lump-sum taxation (forfait) regime whereby eligible foreign nationals who do not undertake any professional activity in Switzerland are levied tax on deemed income that derives from their annual living expenses or a multiple of the annual rental costs.
  • Switzerland operates a cantonal tax system, with cantons having their own rates and approaches to lump-sum taxation, which can materially affect overall exposure to Swiss tax.
  • The annual lump sum tax is negotiated with the relevant cantonal authorities on a case by case basis which, when concluded, offers the taxpayer certainty and efficiency.
  • Advance tax clearances can be obtained to confirm the Swiss tax treatment of existing trust and other asset holding structures that a taxpayer may have as part of their Swiss pre-arrival planning.
  • Other Swiss taxes such as wealth tax and gift and inheritance taxes are also relevant considerations when choosing an appropriate Swiss canton.

We regularly advise clients based in the UK and who wish to relocate to Switzerland, making sure that their Swiss pre-arrival planning is fully co-ordinated with their departure from the UK.

We are also advising international clients who wish to establish asset holding structures with Swiss fiduciary providers or move existing structures to such providers, and often working alongside the clients’ long-standing network of financial intermediaries in the country.

We maintain strong, on-the-ground relationships in Switzerland with lawyers, fiduciaries and private banks to ensure that we are well placed to provide the tax, estate planning and structuring advice that our clients need on a cross-border basis in a fully comprehensive, collaborative and seamless manner.

In the press

  • Camilla Wallace was quoted in the Financial Times on global wealth trends. New research shows a slowdown in high-net-worth individuals changing tax residence, as earlier political and tax-driven moves begin to settle. Camilla notes that much of the initial relocation activity following the abolition of the UK’s non-dom regime has already taken place. Read more here.
  • George Merrylees has authored an article for FT Adviser, examining why the temporary repatriation facility (TRF) has seen limited uptake since its introduction. The article considers how, despite being a generous and simplified mechanism designed to encourage the use of offshore funds in the UK, wider economic and political uncertainty has meant many taxpayers have either delayed decisions or left the UK altogether. Read more here.
  • Petra Warrington and Sanjvee Shah are quoted by thewealthnet in their article on how some family offices are increasing investment diversification into luxury assets as next generation priorities reshape investment decisions. Read more here.

International mobility and UK tax: planning for two critical milestones

For internationally mobile individuals, the UK’s post-6 April 2025 tax landscape requires careful forward planning. Two milestones will often be particularly significant:

  • the end of the four-year period under the foreign income and gains (FIG) regime for recent arrivers; and
  • the point at which an individual has been UK resident for 10 out of the previous 20 UK tax years and becomes “long-term resident” (LTR) for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes.

Each of these junctures has the potential to materially widen an individual’s exposure to UK taxation.

Understanding the FIG regime

The FIG regime was introduced from 6 April 2025 as part of the UK’s move away from the remittance basis of taxation and towards a residence system for taxing foreign income and gains. Broadly, an eligible individual may claim relief on qualifying foreign income and gains arising in their first four tax years of UK residence provided they were non-UK tax resident for at least the previous 10 consecutive UK tax years (“a qualifying new resident”).

For many individuals who have recently arrived in the UK, the period during which a FIG claim is available is a narrow one. Once FIG relief ceases to apply, foreign income and gains arising will generally be taxed in the UK on the arising basis, subject to any available credit for foreign tax and to the terms of any applicable double tax treaty. That change can have significant consequences, particularly where the individual has substantial offshore investments, non-UK business interests or has an interest in a self-settled trust.

Making use of the remaining FIG window

For individuals who claim under the FIG regime, the final FIG years may represent a meaningful planning opportunity. Where a substantial gain is expected on the disposal of a foreign asset, or where material distributions or income realisations are anticipated from an overseas portfolio or structure, it may be sensible to consider whether those events can take place during the remaining FIG period rather than after it has ended. Timing may now directly affect whether proceeds fall outside the UK tax net altogether or are fully taxed as they arise.

This issue is especially acute in cases involving offshore structures. The 2025 tax reforms fundamentally altered the treatment of FIG within settlor-interested trust structures. In particular, the former protection for FIG arising within such structures is no longer available and the UK tax consequences can be significant. FIG that is treated as arising to a settlor can qualify for relief under the FIG regime; however, only if the settlor is a qualifying new resident and the FIG arises within their first four years of UK residence.

When long-term residence triggers IHT exposure

While the end of the FIG period is principally an income tax and capital gains tax issue, the 10-year milestone is often even more significant because of its implications for IHT.

From 6 April 2025, an individual’s exposure to IHT is no longer determined by domicile but by a residence system. Broadly, an individual becomes a LTR for IHT purposes once they have been UK resident for at least 10 of the previous 20 UK tax years. At that point, an individual’s worldwide asset base may come within the scope of UK IHT on lifetime transfers and on death.

Importantly, LTR status can continue after an individual leaves the UK for a “tail” period between three and ten tax years, depending on how many years an individual has been UK tax resident.

Trusts remain one of the most sensitive areas under the new rules. Overseas assets in a trust an individual has set up or added to can be within the IHT regime when that individual is LTR, even if the assets were settled when the individual was not yet LTR. That represents a significant departure from the previous position that the IHT status of a trust was fixed by reference to the settlor’s domicile position when the trust was created.

Cross-border family arrangements also require attention. Where one spouse or civil partner has become LTR and the other has not, the availability of the spouse exemption for IHT may be more limited than many couples expect. Although an election may in some circumstances be available, that is not a step to be taken lightly, since it can widen the recipient spouse’s own exposure to IHT.

Reviewing structures

Against this background, it is important for individuals to undertake a thorough review of their affairs before either milestone is reached.

Before the FIG period ends, individuals should carefully identify which income and gains fall within the FIG regime and consider whether material transactions ought to be accelerated while relief remains available. In some cases, where a taxpayer had previous claimed the remittance basis, consideration can also be given to the availability of the “temporary repatriation facility” to bring amounts derived from previously untaxed and unremitted FIG into the UK at a lower flat rate of tax (further details of which are outlined in this article).

Before the 10-year IHT threshold is reached, the exercise is usually broader. It will often involve a review of an individual’s worldwide asset base, existing trust structures, succession plans and any family arrangements that may have IHT consequences under the new residence-based IHT regime once the 10-year point has passed.

Conclusion

For internationally mobile individuals, the expiry of the period to qualify for the FIG regime and becoming LTR for IHT purposes can significantly increase their exposure to UK taxation. A timely review of FIG, offshore structures, trust arrangements and succession planning can make a material difference to the options available. Given the complexity of the new rules, advice should be taken well in advance of either milestone being reached.

Update on the UK’s Trust Registration Service and Register of Overseas Entities

Trust Registration Service

Under the current framework, a non UK trust is generally required to register on the TRS only in limited circumstances. These include where the trust directly acquires UK land on or after 6 October 2020, incurs a UK tax liability, or (where a UK resident trustee is involved) enters into an ongoing business relationship with a UK “relevant person” (for example, a solicitor, accountant, bank, estate agent or other person to whom the UK’s money laundering legislation applies).

Regulations made on 9 June 2026 introduce a significant extension to the TRS regime. In particular, non‑UK trusts that acquired an interest in UK land before 6 October 2020, and continue to hold that interest when the new rules come into force on 30 June 2026, will be brought within scope. We previously published an article on this subject in Globally Speaking October 2025. Since this article was published, we now know that affected trusts will benefit from a transitional period in which to gather the required information, with a registration deadline of 1 September 2027.

The policy emphasis on transparency is further reinforced by the TRS data‑sharing rules. Although the TRS register is not publicly searchable, information may be disclosed to those who can demonstrate a “legitimate interest”, typically linked to the investigation of financial crime; however, there is currently no data-sharing in respect of non-UK trusts holding UK land provided the trust has no UK trustees. The regulations extend the data-sharing rules so that this category of trust will be within scope for data requests going forwards. This is a material widening of transparency for offshore structures. Importantly, the data-sharing requirement is different where a trust holds a controlling interest in a “third country entity” (broadly, a non‑UK entity which is not subject to national legislation equivalent to the EU’s rules on transparency of beneficial owners). In such cases, information regarding the trust’s beneficial owners may be disclosed without the need to satisfy the “legitimate interest” test. Currently, this rule does not apply to non-UK trusts holding UK land where there are no UK trustees, but this will change when the regulations come into force at the end of this month. Therefore, while safeguards remain, the reality is that trust structures holding UK land are becoming more visible, which may raise privacy and governance concerns, particularly for high-profile families.

The compliance burden should not be underestimated. Registration requires detailed disclosure of the trust’s beneficial owners (including settlors, trustees and beneficiaries). Thereafter, trustees must ensure that the TRS record is actively kept up to date. Failures to comply may give rise to penalties.

Register of Overseas Entities

Where UK land is held through an overseas entity, trustees within the ownership chain must already engage with the ROE regime. ROE requires overseas entities to provide Companies House with details of their registrable beneficial owners as a condition of acquiring or holding UK land.

Since 31 August 2025, members of the public have been able to apply to Companies House for access to trust information recorded on the ROE in certain circumstances. We previously published articles on this subject in Globally Speaking March 2025 and October 2025.

The latest draft regulations published on 1 June 2026 go further in terms of information becoming more freely available to the public. In particular, the proposed reforms remove the requirement for an applicant to identify a trust by name when requesting disclosure. Instead, the name and identification number of the overseas entity (both publicly available via Companies House) will be sufficient; thereby removing a practical barrier to obtaining trust-related information.

The draft regulations also adopt a less restricted approach to disclosure where trusts involve minor beneficiaries. While information relating directly to minors will continue to be withheld unless a “legitimate interest” is established, other associated trust information may be disclosed without meeting that threshold. This reflects an easing of the current position, under which broader trust information would typically be withheld in such cases.

The ROE protection regime remains available, enabling applications to Companies House to withhold certain information from public disclosure. However, protection will continue to be granted only in limited circumstances. A welcome development is the streamlining of the process for removing an individual’s residential address from the public register, as evidence of actual occupation will no longer be required. In most cases, however, a replacement service address will still need to be provided.

The draft regulations are currently making their way through Parliament and will come into force on the day after they are made.

For many non-UK trusts, these reforms mark a clear transition towards a more visible and regulated environment. Early engagement with advisers will be essential to ensure compliance, consider whether any protective applications may be appropriate and to manage wider reputational and governance risks.

For further information, please contact the Wedlake Bell Private Client team or your usual adviser.

Wide or narrow: what role does the protector play in an offshore trust?

Earlier this year, the Privy Council issued an important decision in the case of A and others v C and others [2026] UKPC 11. The decision provides helpful clarity on a long standing practical question: what role does a protector play where their consent is required for trustee decisions, but the trust deed does not explain how that consent power should be exercised?

Although the case arose in Bermuda, the decision is expected to influence trust practice across offshore jurisdictions.

What is a protector?

A protector is a person or company appointed under a trust deed to hold specific powers, including rights to approve or veto important trustee decisions.

Protectors are often used to provide comfort to the settlor and beneficiaries, act as a link between the family and the trustees and be an additional layer of oversight and accountability.

The “wide role” and the “narrow role”

Historically, there has been uncertainty about how a protector should approach their role when asked to give consent. Two competing views had developed.

  • Under the “narrow role”, the protector’s function is supervisory: the protector asks whether the trustee’s decision is one that a reasonable and properly informed trustee could make and, if it is, the protector would ordinarily be expected to provide consent.
  • Under the “wide role”, the protector must exercise their own independent fiduciary discretion and reach their decision as to whether consent should be given, taking into account relevant considerations and disregarding irrelevant ones.

Facts of the case

The case of A and others v C and others concerned the “X Trusts”, a group of discretionary trusts governed by English law, Bermudian law and Jersey law, and which had at least one Bermuda resident trust corporation as trustee. The trusts benefited two family branches and certain important trustee decisions required prior written protector consent, including capital appointments and dealings with specified securities. In 2017, the trustees proposed a significant restructuring which would have resulted in an unequal division of assets between the two branches. Protector consent was required for the trustee to proceed in the proposed manner. The protectors indicated that they were unlikely to approve the proposals on the basis that they were entitled to exercise the “wide role”. The Bermudian courts disagreed and held that the protectors had the “narrow role”. That decision was then appealed to the Privy Council.

The Privy Council’s decision

The Privy Council concluded that, on the wording of the trust deeds, the protectors had the “wide role”. However, this was not a general statement that applies to all protectors: the Privy Council emphasised that the protector’s role depends on the wording of the trust deed. Where a trust deed grants a protector a veto or consent power, but it does not stipulate how that power is to be exercised, the court should not assume that the protector’s role is purely supervisory. Instead, consideration needs to be given to whether the trust deed and/or general law impose any constraints on the exercise of such power.

In this case, the Privy Council held that there were provisions in the trust deeds supporting the wider role for the protectors, including:

  • the ability of the protectors to release or waive their powers which would be unusual if the protectors had a narrow role of purely checking legality of trustee decisions;
  • the ability of the trustees to act without obtaining the unanimous consent of any joint protectors;
  • the fact that protector consent was only required for certain specified trustee decisions.

Conclusions

Scope of the decision – the decision is binding in Bermuda, but it is likely to be highly persuasive in other trust jurisdictions. In Jersey, it is broadly consistent with Re Piedmont and Riviera Trusts [2021] JRC 248, which had already adopted the wide view.

Reviewing existing trust deeds – trustees should review existing trust deeds with protector provisions to ensure that they, the settlor and protector all understand the nature and extent of the protector’s powers.
Drafting new trust deeds clearly – if the protector is intended to act only as a limited supervisory “watchdog”, or alternatively to exercise independent discretion, this should be stated expressly.

Appointment of the protector – if the protector is expected to have a more active role, due consideration should be given as to who is appointed, to ensure that the chosen protector has the required level of independence and skills.

Trustees should involve the protector at an early stage – where the protector has a wide role, the trustees should engage with them as early as possible on decisions requiring consent and maintain open communication to avoid delays or disagreements.

For further information, please contact Sanjvee Shah, Caroline Russell or your usual Wedlake Bell adviser.

Goodbye cards, hello codes: the shift to UK eVisas explained

The UK has completed a significant shift in its immigration system, replacing physical residence permits and passport endorsements with a fully digital model centred on electronic visa records, known as eVisas. Overseas nationals living in the UK or applying for long-term visas will no longer routinely receive biometric residence permits or immigration stamps. Instead, their immigration status is recorded and accessed online through a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) account.

This change represents a fundamental transformation in how individuals evidence their lawful status in the UK. The ability to prove immigration status remains critical across a wide range of everyday activities, including international travel, commencing employment, renting property, accessing healthcare or public benefits, and opening bank accounts. Under the new system, individuals demonstrate their status digitally, typically by generating a share code for employers or landlords, or through automated checks conducted by government departments and carriers such as airlines.

Importantly, expired biometric residence permits and cards are no longer valid for travel to the UK. Individuals who have not registered for or accessed their eVisa risk being denied boarding by carriers, even where they hold valid underlying immigration permission.

While many individuals already have an eVisa in place, including EU nationals granted status under the EU Settlement Scheme, a significant cohort of UK residents must take proactive steps to ensure they can access their digital record. This includes new visa holders, individuals with indefinite leave to remain who rely on historic physical documents, and those with expired biometric cards.

A significant number of long-term residents continue to hold indefinite leave to remain evidenced by passport stamps or vignettes. Although these remain valid for the time being, the Home Office encourages conversion to an eVisa through a “No Time Limit” application.   

Failure to secure access to an eVisa carries practical and potential legal consequences. While holders of expired biometric cards may continue to use them for limited in-country purposes for a transitional period, they face risks of non-compliance and disruption, particularly when travelling. Those relying on legacy documents may continue to do so for now, but this position is subject to future policy change.

Overall, the UK’s transition to eVisas reflects a clear policy direction towards a digital-first immigration system. While the Home Office considers eVisas to be more secure, as they cannot be lost, stolen or damaged, individuals must ensure they are able to access and demonstrate their status effectively to avoid disruption.

If you or your organisation encounter any difficulties accessing, evidencing or converting immigration status under the new eVisa system, our team would be pleased to provide tailored advice and practical support to ensure ongoing compliance and minimise disruption.

For further information please contact Julia Jackson or your usual Wedlake Bell adviser.

Potential changes to the taxation of Limited Liability Companies in the UK

Limited Liability Companies are common vehicles used for investing in the US.  They are often seen as necessary for non-tax reasons, such as providing protection from the relatively litigious legal landscape in the US. For example, we understand that they are often recommended to landlords in the US, to provide a degree of protection by claims from tenants.

Current issues

The difficulty with these entities is that the UK tax authority, HMRC, generally takes the view that double tax treaty relief is not available, where they are held by UK residents.  This can be a disincentive for those with Limited Liability Companies to live and work in the UK. 

HMRC’s view on this issue means that both US and UK tax apply to the same profits of the Limited Liability Company in full, without any credit for the other country’s tax on the same profits. This can lead to stark results. For example, profits of £150,000 could suffer an effective tax rate of over 60%.

Potential reforms

As reported by the Financial Times in April, the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was said to use a trip to Washington to announce that the law would be changed so that this double taxation would cease. 

The report stated that this was as part of a bid to lure wealthy investors back to the UK and to market the UK as a safe haven, in contrast to the United Arab Emirates.

The report went on to add that a consultation would be promised, giving the public and practitioners an opportunity to give their views on this reform.

If eventually introduced, such a reform would be welcome news for clients with interests in US Limited Liability Companies. 

It remains to be seen whether the consultation will also clarify the treatment of other common US estate planning arrangements, such as revocable trusts.

What should I do if have a Limited Liability Company?

HMRC’s current view that double tax treaty relief does not apply is only one interpretation and is not necessarily always proved correct.  Indeed, in Anson v HMRC (2015) UKSC 44, the Supreme Court disagreed with HMRC, and allowed treaty relief for a Delaware Limited Liability Company.  For technical reasons, that judgment is not automatically binding, but it can assist taxpayers in some circumstances.

Depending on the governing documents and state law that applies in a particular case, the Anson judgment might provide some taxpayers with the opportunity to conclude that treaty relief applies.  This could be useful before any potential law change (if any), as it cannot be guaranteed that the law will change with retrospective effect.

How we can help

Wedlake Bell’s Private Cient team has specialists who can advise US-connected clients, including those with interests in Limited Liability Companies, on their UK tax liabilities and cross-border estate planning, and can examine the relevant documents and advise on the prospects of treaty relief applying for affected individuals. For further information, please contact Sophie St John, Andrew McIntyre, or your usual Wedlake Bell adviser.

Globally Speaking – April 2026

The international private client landscape continues to shift, shaped by geopolitical uncertainty, political change and increasingly divergent tax and regulatory regimes. Some internationally mobile families may find themselves outside the jurisdictions they originally expected to be living in, prompting a reassessment of where – and how – they structure their affairs. This may include re‑examining the UK alongside alternative jurisdictions offering stability, clarity and long‑term certainty.

As a result, families and their advisers are taking a more strategic approach to cross‑border planning, with renewed focus on jurisdictional choice, long‑term governance and resilience.

In this edition of Globally Speaking, our Private Client team shares practical insight into the issues we are seeing across our international practice.

In this issue

Jurisdiction Focus: Italy

Italy is an increasingly popular destination for internationally mobile private clients, combining lifestyle appeal with flexible residence options. In terms of immigration, the Italian Investor Visa (sometimes referred to as the “Italian Golden Visa”) route allows HNWIs to secure residency through a qualifying investment of €500,000 into an Italian company, €250,000 into an innovative start up, the purchase of €2 million in Italian government bonds, or a €1 million philanthropic donation. There is no minimum stay requirement, making this particularly attractive for families and principals with global commitments.

In terms of tax, Italy offers one of Europe’s most competitive regimes for high-net worth individuals, known as the “lump sum regime”. Foreign source income and assets can be excluded from Italian taxation and instead subject to a flat annual charge of €300,000 for up to 15 years, regardless of overseas income levels. The regime may be extended to family members for an additional fixed charge of €50,000. Foreign assets are not subject to Italian wealth taxes, and non Italian assets may fall outside Italian inheritance and gift tax, offering valuable succession planning advantages.

Italy also permits a high degree of flexibility, allowing individuals to tailor the regime by excluding selected income streams where this better aligns with existing structures or treaty positions. Combined with Italy’s extensive double tax treaty network, this enables careful coordination with UK and international tax exposure.

Our Private Client team works closely with tax and corporate specialists, and trusted Italian advisers, to ensure Italian interests are fully aligned with a client’s broader global strategy. We have particular experience in the relocation of senior professionals in the finance industry, often with complex carry arrangements. We deliver clear, commercially grounded advice, helping clients relocate with confidence while protecting wealth across generations.

In the press

  • Partner Matt Braithwaite was quoted in eprivateclient commenting on the UK tax risks facing expatriates returning from the Middle East amid ongoing regional instability. He highlighted how easily individuals can inadvertently trigger UK tax residence, even where a return is driven by safety or necessity rather than choice. Read more here.

British expatriates returning to the UK from the Gulf: key tax and residency considerations

At a time when families are understandably focused on safety and stability, it is easy to overlook how quickly UK tax residence can be triggered and how an unplanned return to the UK can have significant tax consequences if not managed carefully.

When does returning to the UK create a tax risk?

UK tax residence is determined under the SRT, which looks primarily at time spent in the UK alongside an individual’s connections (“ties”) to the UK.

The position is often more complex than the commonly referenced 90-day rule. While spending 183 days or more in the UK in a tax year will automatically result in UK tax residence, many returning expats can become UK‑resident after spending significantly fewer days in the UK, especially if they have retained or acquire ties relevant for the purposes of the SRT — such as:

  • a spouse or minor children residing in the UK;
  • access to UK accommodation;
  • substantive work in the UK (whether employed or self employed);
  • UK presence in previous UK tax years; and
  • more time in the UK than in any other single country.

The more UK ties an expat has, the fewer days they can spend in the UK before they become UK tax resident. For individuals who are not UK resident in any of the previous three UK tax years, tax residence can be triggered with as few as 46 days in the UK in a tax year, in certain circumstances. For individuals who have ceased to be UK resident in any of the previous  three UK tax years, 17 days in the UK in a tax year can result in UK tax residency,  in certain circumstances.

Why this matters

Becoming UK tax‑resident can have wide‑ranging consequences. Once resident, an individual is generally subject to UK tax on their worldwide income and gains. Any employment or consultancy income earned overseas or income earned for work carried out in the UK for a foreign employer or under a consultancy arrangement with a foreign entity will be subject to tax in the UK – this would also include employment share awards and other incentives in relation to overseas employment. Income received and gains realised from overseas investments also becomes taxable.

Individuals who return to the UK within five tax years of leaving need to be especially careful as they will be caught by the temporary non‑residence rules, which can result in certain income received and capital gains realised during the period of non‑residence being subject to UK tax on their return to the UK.

If an individual is a settlor of any non-UK trusts, say holding non-UK investments, then the income and gains which arise in these trusts can be attributable to such an individual and be subject to UK tax, even if no trust benefits are received from such trusts.

However, it is not all “doom and gloom”. For those British expats who are returning after long periods of absence from the UK (i.e. at least 10 full tax years of non-UK tax residency in the previous 20 tax years) they can benefit from the favourable tax regime that the UK now operates where by their foreign income and gains (subject to certain exceptions) realised during the first four years of UK tax residency will be exempt from UK tax.  This includes distributions received from non-UK trusts in certain circumstances.  In addition, now that domicile is no longer relevant for UK tax purposes if, by the start of the tax year of their return, a British ex-pat (even those born in the UK) has been out of the UK for 10 out of the previous 20 tax years their non-UK assets will remain outside of the scope of the UK inheritance tax until they become UK resident for 10 out of 20 tax years in the future. These tax changes which came into effect from 6 April 2025 can have significant UK tax advantages for some expats who are returning or are considering a return to the UK as under the previous tax regime, they would have been treated as domiciled in the UK from the first year of their return to the UK and so subject to UK tax on a global basis for income, capital gains and inheritance tax purposes, subject to any reliefs available under any applicable double tax treaties.

Exceptional circumstances — limited but relevant

UK tax rules do provide limited relief where days spent in the UK arise due to exceptional circumstances beyond an individual’s control, including war or civil unrest. In these cases, up to 60 days may potentially be disregarded for residence purposes. However, this relief is very limited in practice as, save for situations where an individual is genuinely prevented from leaving the UK due to extreme health or other limited circumstances, they would usually have options available to leave the UK. HMRC has confirmed that it will not make any special allowances under the SRT specifically for returning expats. The exceptional circumstances provisions continue to be interpreted narrowly and applied on a case‑by‑case basis. Remaining in the UK for personal convenience, family reasons, or caution once the immediate crisis has passed, is unlikely to qualify. As a result, exceptional circumstances relief should not be relied upon to assert non-UK tax residency without careful advice.

Planning points for returning expats

For those expats who have returned, or are considering returning to the UK, early planning is essential. Key steps may include:

  • reviewing current income streams and asset positions;
  • considering likely future income and gains outcomes;
  • reviewing days spent in the UK in previous tax years and the current tax year;
  • assessing whether split‑year treatment may be available;
  • considering whether any employment and incentives tax advice is required;
  • assessing the impact of UK residence on existing trust and company structures including any executive roles held; and
  • considering whether a temporary stay elsewhere may be appropriate while matters stabilise.

Each individual situation will need to be considered on the facts and will depend on that person’s personal circumstances, family arrangements, and historic UK residence profile.

A shifting policy backdrop for internationally mobile families

Alongside these immediate tax residence considerations, the wider UK tax landscape is also evolving. Rachel Reeves recently launched a consultation aimed at making the UK tax treatment of US‑style Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) more attractive. If implemented, this could simplify cross‑border structuring for US citizens and dual nationals, and may encourage Americans currently based in the Middle East to consider relocation to the UK.

While the outcome of this consultation remains uncertain, it may point to a broader reassessment of how the UK positions itself in a competitive global mobility environment.

A wider reassessment of cross‑border planning

For many internationally mobile families, recent events in the Middle East have highlighted how quickly geopolitical uncertainty can disrupt carefully structured cross-border arrangements. What may have been designed as a long‑term lifestyle move overseas, events can change abruptly, with tax consequences following close behind.

For British expats returning from the Gulf, the key message is to take advice early, ideally before returning to the UK or very shortly thereafter. Even a short, unplanned stay in the UK can have lasting adverse tax implications if UK residence is triggered unintentionally.

For further information, please contact Clare Armitage, Sanjvee Shah or your usual Private Client adviser.

The Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF): act now or regret it later

From 6 April 2025, the remittance basis of taxation was abolished and the “Foreign Income and Gains” or “FIG” regime was introduced. Under the FIG regime, a “new” UK resident pays no UK tax on FIG, even if brought to or used in the UK, for the first four tax years of UK residence. To be regarded as a new UK resident, the individual must not have been resident in the UK for 10 consecutive tax years prior to arrival.

Those who do not qualify for the FIG regime will find their annual global income and gains subject to UK income tax and capital gains tax at their applicable marginal rates (subject to any available relief under a double tax treaty). This is a significant change for those who were previously able to claim the remittance basis which shielded their FIG from UK tax unless it was brought to, used in, or enjoyed in the UK.

Acknowledging the significant impact such a change would have, the government introduced some concessions. One of those concessions is the Temporary Repatriation Facility or “TRF” which is the focus of this article.

What is the TRF?

The TRF allows former remittance basis users to designate amounts derived from FIG arising before 6 April 2025 (previously shielded by the remittance basis) so that they are taxed at a reduced rate. That reduced rate is 12% during the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 tax years and 15% during the 2027/2028 tax year. This compares to a rate of up to 45% on foreign income and 24% on foreign gains if the TRF is not claimed. Once a TRF designation has been made, and the TRF charge has been paid, the individual can remit the designated amount to the UK without any further charges.

The key benefits

Freedom to remit at a later date

Providing the TRF designation has been made correctly and the TRF charge has been paid, the individual can choose the tax year in which to remit the designated amount to the UK.  This can be after 6 April 2028 (when the TRF closes).

Non-liquid assets

It is also possible to designate non-liquid assets under the TRF where such assets have been purchased using FIG arising in years in which the individual claimed the remittance basis. The designated amount will rise to the top of the ordering rules, meaning that it will be treated as being remitted in priority to other funds when disposal proceeds are remitted to the UK.

Mixed funds

It is possible to designate amounts of uncertain origin under the TRF. The TRF may be useful where clean capital has been tainted with pre-6 April 2025 foreign income and gains as the individual can elect for this to be a designated amount under the TRF and pay a reduced rate of 12% or 15% tax and then have peace of mind that they can bring the designated funds into the UK at any point thereafter without any further UK tax charges. Essentially, there is an opportunity to convert funds to clean capital at a cost of 12% or 15%.

Trust income and gains

The TRF can be used in relation to pre-6 April 2025 FIG in a non-UK trust. Where a UK resident beneficiary receives a distribution after 6 April 2025 that is matched to pre-6 April 2025 FIG, the beneficiary can elect under the TRF to pay tax at 12% or 15% on the distribution instead of up to 45%. This is only possible where the beneficiary has claimed the remittance basis previously and where funds actually leave the trust (i.e. you cannot designate funds retained within the trust under the TRF).

The possible traps

Despite the benefits, the TRF does contain a number of important limitations.

No relief for foreign tax paid

It is not possible to set off any foreign tax paid against the TRF charge. For example, if you have paid tax on a designated amount in France, you cannot set the French tax against the TRF charge. Instead, you will pay both the French tax and the TRF charge. Where foreign tax is payable, it may therefore be better to consider using any relevant double tax treaties rather than the TRF.

Payment of the TRF charge could be a taxable remittance

Even if the TRF charge is paid directly to HMRC using FIG which arose before 6 April 2025, such payment will be a taxable remittance unless the TRF charge is paid from the designated amount.

Record keeping

It is necessary to maintain records to support the TRF claim. As mentioned above, the designated funds do not need to be remitted in the year in which the designation is made. Records should be kept to ensure the claim can be supported when such funds are eventually remitted.

What should you do next?

Our experience is that uptake of the TRF has been low despite it being a generous regime, particularly for those holding complex mixed funds. It is unclear whether it is the limitations set out above that are deterring uptake, or whether individuals simply have not decided whether or not to leave the UK: there is of course no point in using the regime if you will leave the UK in any event.  The key point is that the TRF is time limited and the 12% rate will only be available for one more tax year (2026/27) albeit taxpayers have twelve months from the tax return filing date to make the election. Former remittance basis users should therefore consider the application of the TRF as soon as possible. Where available, it provides a great opportunity to “tidy up” previously unremitted FIG arising before 6 April 2025 and lock-in lower rates of tax. Depending on the circumstances, there are possible alternatives available to the TRF in relation to mixed funds. Please contact us if you wish to discuss this further.

Why a health and welfare Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is just as important as one for finance and property

Importantly, your appointed attorneys can only act if you lack mental capacity — but when that point is reached, having the right people legally empowered to speak for you can make a profound difference. A properly drafted health and welfare LPA ensures that your wishes, values and preferences are not only known but must be taken into account by medical professionals and care providers and that your chosen attorneys are fully involved in and consulted about all health and welfare decisions.

Two recent 2026 Court of Protection cases have shed light on and reinforced how significant this protection can be.

Firstly, in Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board v RW & Anor [2026] EWCOP 10 (T3), a hospital did not consult with the donor’s health and welfare attorneys concerning decisions involving life sustaining treatment and thereby failed to take account of the donor’s wishes and feelings in contravention of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)’s rules about consulting such attorneys. This unlawful action resulted in a costs order against the hospital and changes in the way that the donor’s care and treatment was carried out. It is an important lesson that health and welfare attorneys should remember and remind medical staff and hospitals as to their obligations here- and that doing so helps ensure the individual’s own wishes and feelings are properly respected at a critical time.

The second case, Re HDEB [2026] EWCOP 12 (T2), highlights the uncertainty that can arise when no health and welfare LPA exists. This case concerned an application by financial deputies (the parents of HDEB, a young adult)) to the Court of Protection to be appointed as his health and welfare deputies. The judge turned down the application.  He stated that “I do not find it to be in HDEB’s best interests to appoint JB and SB as PWDs (personal welfare deputies) for HDEB.  I find that collaborative decision making has worked in his best interests. I consider that if there are disagreements over major decisions, such as residence, the Court of Protection should resolve those disagreements rather than PWDs.  I consider that the appointment of PWDs would be an unnecessary infringement of HDEB’s right to autonomy as a 22-year-old adult”.

The court found that because there had been good collaborative working between the parents and the statutory bodies involved in his care up to this point, that it was unnecessary to appoint them as health and welfare deputies. Any such decisions, for example, as to change of residence or care could be made by a further application to the court. It appears that this does somewhat undermine the protection for the patient and in other circumstances statutory bodies may not seek such a collaborative approach especially where ongoing decision making is required.  The decision is going to be appealed

We recommend that clients have both financial and health LPAs in place to ensure that not only have they, rather than a court, decided who their decision makers will be, but also that those appointed will respect and observe particular wishes and feelings about care and treatment. If you require assistance with preparing a new LPA for health and welfare, please contact Ann Stanyer, Victoria Mahon or your usual Wedlake Bell adviser.