Multimillionaire couple told to pay £600k tax bill as judge rules family home in UK

By Ben Riley-Smith

2:06PM GMT 18 Nov 2013

Follow

A couple from Salford are facing a £600,000 bill to the taxman after a tribunal found they were still UK residents despite moving to Portugal more than a decade ago.

Stephen and Pauline Rumbelow, multimillionaires who owned a grade 1 listed mansion and made a fortune in property development, escaped the country after Mrs Rumbelow suffered a breakdown.

The 57-year-old pair, who have three children, had hoped to spend their latter years leading "the easy life" in a villa they built for themselves in Silves, southern Portugal.

But a long-running dispute with the tax authorities has resulted in them facing a bill of almost £600,000 after a judge ruled that the farmhouse they continued to own remained "essentially a family home".

From lowly beginnings as an engineering apprentice straight from school, Mr Rumbelow – who described himself as a "hard hat man" – built a phenomenally successful building and property development business.

Related Articles

The undercover football hooligan

18 Nov 2013

Thieves 'using fake locksmith stickers to mark houses'

18 Nov 2013

MP welcomes internet abuse filters

18 Nov 2013

Top commando pledges support for Marine A

17 Nov 2013

The couple's energetic rise culminated in their purchase of the 16th-century Winnington Hall, near Northwich, which Mrs Rumbelow ran as a restaurant and conference centre – working so hard that she eventually suffered a breakdown.

That was the trigger for the couple's plan to "tidy up" their business affairs, escape the stress of it all and make a new life for themselves on the continent, Judge Jonathan Cannan told the First-Tier Tax Tribunal.

After briefly living in an unfurnished flat in Belgium – which was "not to their taste" – the couple built themselves a mansion called "Villa Rumba" in Silves, Portugal, intending to "lead the easy life" and settle down to enjoy the weather.

However, their idyll was disturbed when Revenue and Customs refused to accept that they were resident abroad in the tax years 2001-2005 and hit them with swingeing retrospective tax demands.

The Rumbelows, who lived at Yew Tree Farm, Crowton, before their departure, argued that they had intended to move permanently abroad when they boarded a Europe-bound train in April 2001.

After years of punishingly hard work to establish their fortune, they said they wanted to retire and hoped the move would benefit Mrs Rumbelow's health as well as 'improving their quality of life'.

They said they had only since returned to England as visitors to see friends and family – and never for more than the 90 days a year, the threshold then applied by the tax authorities for overseas residence.

However, dismissing the couple's appeal, Judge Cannan noted Mr Rumbelow's "deep suspicion" of the tax authorities and found that their departure had not marked "a distinct break" with the UK.

Their youngest daughter, Kayleigh, was only 15 when they headed abroad but had stayed behind in England. Although her mother "would have liked nothing better" than for her to go with them to Portugal, she did not want to leave Northwich and could not be forced to move against her will.

Noting the couple's close family links to Northwich, the judge said they had never sold Yew Tree Farm and were "not merely travellers" when they stayed there during their frequent trips back to England.

Although the couple protested that their intention to make their permanent home abroad "could not have been more distinct or clear", the judge said that Yew Tree Farm had "remained, essentially, a family home".

Mr Rumbelow had continued to be closely involved in winding down the couple's businesses. Although there had been some "loosening" of their social and family bonds with Northwich it was not "substantial" enough to make them non-UK residents.

The £600,000 figure is based on disputed income tax and capital gains tax from the years 2001 to 2005 for both Mr and Mrs Rumbelow.

 Law and OrderNews »Portugal »UK News »Crime »Ben Riley-Smith »

In politics

View the Original article

Blooming barmy: Council forces couple to dig up flowerbed over health and safety rules

To me, this decision is quite literally blooming petty. There is no other way to describe it

William Geidt

Mrs Geidt, who is a full-time carer to her 91-year-old mother, said: "It seems petty and heavy handed and we feel like we're being singled out."

She said that they are in fear of cars crashing into their home and the flowers show a clear boundary in poor visibility.

"From our own experience we know it is difficult to see the edge of the road in snow and there is a real responsibility of a serious accident if drivers skid down the bank into our cottage.

"The flower bed helps to make it very obvious where the edge of the road is.

"We spend hours tending to the border and planting it each year, we spend money on buying the plants as well.

"It is tragic to think we might have to pull it all up and we are willing to compromise but a sensible compromise," she continued.

View the Original article

Another couple flee to France only to have their baby taken away

By Christopher Booker

6:23PM GMT 09 Nov 2013

Last year I reported the shocking story of Marie Black and Joe Ollis who escaped to France for the birth of their first child, after learning that Norfolk social workers intended to seize it at birth on the grounds that Marie had previously been in a violent relationship with another man, who was by then out of her life. The social workers tracked down the couple and, after baby Luna was born, returned, with the approval of a British judge, to deport the child to England.

Fortunately, the couple had been put in touch with a robust British solicitor, Brendan Fleming, who took their case to the High Court. Here, a more senior judge ruled that, since Luna was born in France and was therefore, under an EU law called Brussels II, “habitually resident” there, the British authorities had no jurisdiction over her. He ordered the social workers to return the baby to her parents in France.

Far from our social workers having learnt any lesson from this case, I have lately been following one which is almost a carbon copy. Another couple fearful that Bedfordshire social workers might seize their first child at birth, again on the grounds that the mother had previously been in an abusive relationship, set off to start a new life in France. A few days ago their baby was born in a French hospital, by caesarean section, and given a French birth certificate. The next day, the mother returned from a shower, covered only in a bath towel, to find her room filled with 10 French policemen and her baby gone.

The policemen were holding a piece of paper indicating that they had been sent by Interpol, at the instigation of the British authorities, to remove the child on the grounds that the mother was a dangerous woman who might harm her baby. The couple were shocked to see that much of the description of her was factually wrong. It was also clear that they could only have been traced by someone hacking into emails they had sent since their arrival in France. The French social workers had removed the baby on “orders from Britain”, but could not otherwise have been more friendly, allowing the couple to see their baby, who had been taken to an orphanage an hour’s drive away. They were horrified to see their child lying in a room full of cots containing other babies.

The mother had already been in touch with Marie Black and Brendan Fleming (although there is still no order from a British court to authorise all that has happened). When the couple appeared in a French court to contest the demand that their baby be deported, the judge was shown a statement citing the Marie Black judgment, making clear that, since Britain had no jurisdiction over the child, deporting her would be illegal. The judge, seemingly out of her depth, adjourned the case, suggesting that it should be heard by a more senior judge in three weeks’ time. We may hope that the new judge can recognise that the law is clear, and that the British authorities had no legal right to arrange what amounted to an act of kidnapping. Meanwhile, a note from Marie Black glowingly reports that 21-month-old Luna has just started attending a toddler group and that all is well. In due course,

Related Articles

And so the 30-year betrayal of our Armed Forces goes on

09 Nov 2013

Why do judges in our family courts ignore the law?

02 Nov 2013

Out to seize their children, courts hound a reformed family

19 Oct 2013

The social worker's petty power trip

12 Oct 2013

I hope to be able to report that this new case has come to a similarly happy ending.

 Christopher BookerFrance »Comment »Columnists »Personal View »Crime »

In Christopher Booker

View the Original article

Benefits couple with 10th baby on way want a bigger home...with room for pet python

Jonathan Isaby of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “It’s scandalous that this couple feel they can simply demand such a large property for themselves and their pet python. Most people who would like to start or expand their family, but choose to do so when they can afford it, they don’t look to taxpayers to pick up the tab.

“Benefits should provide a safety net for those who need help, not subsidise a lifestyle that most people paying for them could not afford.”

Kelly Ansell of Bournemouth Borough Council said yesterday that the family had “gold band” status on the housing waiting list, which means they are a priority.

She went on: “They require larger family accommodation which is in short supply and carries with it a long wait even for those with high priority.

“They are currently being advised by our team with regard to their situation and we will continue to advise and support the family to secure the right accommodation for their needs.”

Cecile Todd of Radian housing association, which owns the property, said the couple had not contacted them to discuss its suitability.

Related articles Mum of 11 on

View the Original article

Group of black youths beat white couple in racially-motivated attack, yelling 'White motherf*****'

0shares Roland Russo was driving in a car with his wife Alanna, both 30, when a group of 10 black teens were blocking his way during a green lightMr Russo honked his horn for the group to move and they started kicking his car in retaliation
When Mr Russo got out of the car they started beating him upPolice arrested four teens after the incident, and are looking for the six othersOne of the suspects says he didn't participate in the assault, but was arrested because he was wearing the same outfit as one of the attackers

By Ashley Collman

PUBLISHED:22:29, 20 October 2013

View the Original article