Oppenheimer leads a complex lifestyle, but where is he resident?

The competition between countries for taxing rights is fierce.
Living and working not only in SA, the US and the UK, but also in countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland, Jonathan Oppenheimer was found to be permanently on the move. Image: Hollie Adams/Bloomberg

The United Kingdom’s First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber had to determine whether Jonathan Oppenheimer was a resident of the UK or South Africa for five particular tax years (spanning 2010 to 2017), and handed down its judgment in the matter on March 24, 2022.

Most countries tax individuals on their worldwide income on a residence basis, according to their specific residence criteria. A non-resident would pay tax only on their foreign income. The outlier is the United States, which taxes US citizens on their worldwide income, no matter where resident.

In today’s globalised environment, it is possible to follow employment opportunities around the world, earn income from different sources in different countries, and move residence.

The competition between countries for taxing rights over that income is becoming more complex, and fierce.


What determines residence?

But what determines residence? Passport? Place of abode? Habitual place of abode? Where your children go to school? Where your home is? The place you intend to go back to one day?

Where there is a double taxation treaty between two possible countries of residence, the rules regarding the residence test will be followed, termed the tie-breaker rule.

This rule suggests the factors that should be considered in determining residence, such as centre of vital interests, place of habitual abode, and the country of which the individual is a national.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) argued that Oppenheimer “lived in the UK as a family and throughout the relevant period”.

“Although he retained property and interests in the RSA he spent more time in the UK where he lived and his centre of vital interests was in the UK.”

The HMRC had taxed Oppenheimer on the basis that he was a resident of the UK for five tax years – 2010/11, 2011/12, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17.

Jonathan Oppenheimer and his wife have real homes on three continents, friends and family on all three, and family in SA. Image: Oppenheimer Partners website

In terms of the tie-breaker rule, the tribunal had to first consider whether Oppenheimer’s personal and economic relations (centre of vital interests) are in the UK or in SA. If this couldn’t be determined, where was his habitual abode?

It was accepted by the HMRC and well as Oppenheimer’s counsel that Oppenheimer had a habitual abode in the UK as well as in SA.

Oppenheimer led a very complex lifestyle. He and his wife had real homes on three continents, friends and family on all three continents, and family in SA. Their maternal grandparents had homes in the US and SA. The three children were at school in the UK, and one child was educated in the US between 2011 and 2013.

“Accordingly, the UK was an easier base for both of them from which to fly to the US.”

OECD Commentary on the Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital Gains

The tribunal referred to the OECD Commentary on the Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital Gains, which sets out an interpretation of the treaty clauses in double taxation treaties.

The commentary suggests the facts to be taken into account in considering whether the individual has a permanent home in a country, including “his family, social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc.”

In argument, the counsel for Oppenheimer advanced five principles in regard to centre of vital interests, namely:

(a) Deep roots such as a permanent home, nationality, domicile, place of birth.

(b) The centre of vital interests is not easily moved.

(c) A limited move to another state is unlikely to shift the centre of vital interests.

(d) The phrase “personal and economic relations” poses a factual and composite test.

(e) “Vital” means permanent links to the State. 

Subjective element

Oppenheimer’s counsel focused on Oppenheimer’s relationship with SA, touching on his entrenched roots in SA, his past and present commitment to and involvement in SA, and that he was in the UK for the purpose of educating his children.

The tribunal agreed with Oppenheimer’s counsel that they must find facts about Oppenheimer’s thinking, and observed that this adds a subjective element to the discussion.

Oppenheimer’s counsel argued that Oppenheimer’s connections with SA are exceptional and his personal and economic relations and habits are all rooted in the SA, wherever he may be at any given time.

The court agreed that the Oppenheimers “certainly retained their possessions including pets, in the RSA, and Isibindi [their home] was always available to them and fully staffed for their arrival.”

The tribunal observed what would be important to Oppenheimer: “… [SA’s] people, its culture, its politics, its place in Africa and the world would rarely have been out of his thoughts”.

“The same could not be said of the UK … His political interests were closer to [those of] the RSA.”


The tribunal found that:

  • Oppenheimer’s lifestyle was complex, he lived and worked not only in SA, the US and the UK, but also in countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland. He was permanently on the move.
  • Even though he spent more time in the UK because of schooling, and in the US because of his wife and child, he returned to SA “for important meetings and other matters including family, business, philanthropic, political and social activities”.
  • Staying in the UK and SA “were of sufficient frequency, duration and regularity to constitute habitual abodes in both countries”.
  • He had a habitual abode in SA, and is a national of SA.
The tribunal thus concluded that the answer to the tie-breaker rule is that Oppenheimer is Treaty Resident in SA.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


Hopefully the reserve bank regrets ever daring to consider Anglo American’s request for offshore listings.

They may even regret not forcing a decent tranche of all minerals into a form of Sovereign Wealth Fund that would benefit all SA citizens into perpetuity.

But now SA, has since Ernest’s days, effectively cash flowed this recalcitrant company’s offshore forays and offshoring of SA’s wealth.

Silly comment I think. As I remember it Anglo moved offshore through a company registered outside of SA that was started with the proceeds from the Zambian copper mine buyout by government. That they informed the ANC was really only a courtesy and, had the ANC moved to block their transfer of capital offshore from sales in SA (including to one C Ramaphosa), it could well have triggered a panic amongst overseas investors into SA.

Now of course Anglo doesn’t have much in the way of assets in SA and overseas investors are hard to find.

In his case, would the trust that pays / maintains his assets and income not pay tax wherever that trust is and then just hand out after tax distributions?

It proves that you find yourself in a rather privileged position when countries fight each other for the right to tax you. The Congolese and Zimbabwean citizens in SA don’t have this problem.

It is the ultimate status simbol actually.

End of comments.




Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us: