UK Residence Test: How Transit Days and Exceptional Circumstances Beat HMRC

A First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judgment handed down in May 2026 offers an important reminder that the Statutory Residence Test (SRT) is highly fact-specific — and that HMRC does not always get it right when counting UK days.

The case of Michael Parker v HMRC [TC/2026/652] concerned the 2019/20 tax year and turned on whether four disputed days should be excluded from Parker's UK day count, bringing him below the critical 91-day threshold for automatic non-UK residence.

The Background: Automatic Overseas Test Three

Under the SRT, an individual can be treated as automatically non-UK resident if — among other conditions — they spend fewer than 91 days in the UK in the tax year (FA 2013, Sch 45, Para 14(1)(d)).

Parker worked in Iraq and returned to the UK periodically, with flights arranged by his employer. On the face of it, he had spent 100 days in the UK during 2019/20 — well above the 91-day threshold. However, he argued that:

• Seven days were excluded under the Covid exceptional circumstances provision (Para 22(7)) — accepted by HMRC
• Three days qualified as transit days (Para 22(3))
• One further day was excluded under the exceptional circumstances provision (Para 22(4)) due to adverse weather

HMRC rejected the final four days, leaving Parker at 93 days and UK resident for the year. He appealed.

The Transit Day Issue: Buying Separate Tickets

HMRC's central objection to the transit days was that Parker had purchased separate single tickets for each leg of his journey — flying into the UK, then onwards to Naples for a holiday, returning to the UK, and then flying to Tokyo. HMRC argued that buying separate tickets meant each UK arrival was a new trip, not a transit, so Parker was not a 'passenger' passing through under Para 22(3)(a).

The FTT rejected this argument firmly. There is no basis in the legislation for distinguishing between passengers who hold a single through-ticket and those who purchase separate legs. As the tribunal noted, buying multiple single tickets is entirely consistent with modern travel habits and is often cheaper — a reflection of dynamic pricing on airlines rather than any indication that a traveller has ended their journey.

Provided Parker left the UK the following day and did not engage in activities unconnected with his transit — which the FTT found he had not, staying and eating near the airport rather than returning home — the transit exclusion applied.

The Exceptional Circumstances Day: Storm Jorge

On the remaining disputed day, Parker had been due to fly from the UK to Dublin but Dublin airport closed due to adverse weather (Storm Jorge). He was rebooked onto the next available flight the following day.

HMRC argued two points:

1. Flight cancellations due to bad weather are not 'exceptional' within the ordinary meaning of the word
2. Parker should have taken matters into his own hands and arranged alternative transport rather than waiting for a rebooking

The FTT rejected both. Parker produced flight cancellation statistics that demonstrated closures of this kind were genuinely unusual — satisfying the 'exceptional' test. And on the second point, the tribunal found that waiting for the next offered flight was entirely reasonable; there was no expectation that a traveller should scour alternative routes or carriers under their own initiative.

With the exceptional circumstances day established, this also validated the third transit day (which depended on Parker leaving on the 'next counted day' after a qualifying delay).

What This Means in Practice

The FTT's ruling is a helpful restatement of some important principles:

1. The transit rules are not restricted to through-ticketed journeys. The legislation looks at the substance of what the traveller is doing, not the ticketing arrangements. Clients who regularly transit through the UK on separate-ticket itineraries can take some comfort from this — though careful documentation remains essential.

2. 'Exceptional' does not mean 'unique'. Airport closures, severe weather events, and similar disruptions can qualify even if statistically they occur from time to time. Evidence matters: Parker produced data to back up his position and the FTT accepted it.

3. HMRC's approach to day counting can be overly rigid. In this case, HMRC adopted interpretations of the transit and exceptional circumstances provisions that the tribunal found had no basis in the legislation. Taxpayers with strong facts should not be deterred from challenging HMRC's analysis.

4. The practical lesson: don't cut it fine. The anxiety of a client who discovers they may have spent a day or two too many in the UK is best avoided altogether. Where possible, build a comfortable buffer below the relevant threshold and document every travel movement contemporaneously.

The Wider Residency Planning Context

The Parker case is a timely reminder that UK tax residence disputes are often decided on precise factual detail — the number of days, the purpose of specific visits, the records kept. For internationally mobile individuals, robust contemporaneous documentation is not optional; it is the foundation of any successful challenge or defence.

At Newshams Tax Advisers, we regularly advise individuals with complex residence positions — whether they are working abroad, managing split-year treatment, or navigating the Statutory Residence Test for the first time. We also assist where HMRC has opened an enquiry and a taxpayer needs specialist support to contest the Revenue's conclusions.

---

If you are uncertain about your UK residence position or have received a notice of enquiry from HMRC relating to your residence status, please get in touch with Newshams Tax Advisers. Initial discussions are without obligation.