Statutory Residence Test: do transit days count for UK tax residence?

A practical demonstration of how the Statutory Residence Test is applied: Michael Parker v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 652 (TC)

Key takeaway

The tribunal has confirmed that, in some circumstances, days spent in the UK between international flights may qualify as transit days and may not count towards an individuals’ UK day count under the Statutory Residence Test (SRT). The tribunal has also confirmed that days spent in the UK due to disruption caused by severe weather may be excluded under the SRT’s exceptional circumstances provisions.

What happened in Michael Parker v HMRC?

Published decisions on the Statutory Residence Test (SRT) remain relatively limited, particularly where they concern the practical realities of international travel. Michael Parker v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 652 (TC) is therefore a much-welcomed addition to the material available in the public domain. The judgment is a clear, fact‑driven account of how the SRT operates when an individual’s movements sit on a day‑count threshold. It also demonstrates, in real terms, the degree of scrutiny HMRC is willing to apply, and the quality of evidence a taxpayer must be prepared to produce to prove their statements.

Mr Parker’s worked rotationally in Iraq, with flights to London arranged by his employer. London Heathrow airport was therefore not just a destination but also a connecting point for onward travel. For example, his journeys to Naples, Tokyo and Dublin were arranged via Heathrow, given that this worked out cheaper and more convenient in the long run. However, HMRC argued that a number of these travel days should count towards the total number of days he had spent in the UK, bringing him over the relevant threshold for UK tax residence – namely – 183 days.

The dispute ultimately turned on two issues: whether certain days qualified as transit days, and whether others fell within the exceptional circumstances provisions following travel disruption.

The Statutory Residence Test

The SRT has governed UK tax residence since April 2013. Its purpose was to replace decades of case law and HMRC practice with a statutory framework. In principle, the test offers objectivity. In practice, however, “objective” does not mean “straightforward and simple”.

At its core, the SRT assesses:

• The number of midnights physically spent in the UK;
• The Automatic Overseas Tests;
• The Automatic UK Tests; and
• Where neither applies, the Sufficient Ties Test – connecting factors linked to family, work, accommodation, prior years’ presence and time spent working in the UK.

The Parker case reinforces with clarity that the SRT is a test of facts, not just impressions. It depends on objective conditions and the taxpayer’s ability to substantiate them, especially on days that may be contested.

Why is this case important?

One of the more notable aspects of Parker is the Tribunal’s approach to transit days. Transit and Exceptional Circumstances remain under‑litigated areas of the SRT. Few cases test how these provisions apply when travel is disrupted or when multiple separate tickets are used for cost or logistical reasons.

Mr Parker’s travel arrangements involved separate tickets and overnight stays near Heathrow between flights. HMRC argued that these stopovers went beyond mere transit and should therefore count as days spent in the UK.

The Tribunal disagreed. It accepted that airport hotels, rest periods between flights and separate ticketing arrangements are ordinary features of long-haul international travel. The UK was being used as a travel hub rather than as a destination. This aligns with how international travel works in reality, rather than the overly rigid view HMRC tried to adopt.

The decision is a useful reminder that transit provisions should be applied in a practical and commercially realistic way, particularly where international work patterns require frequent connecting travel.

Exceptional circumstances

The Tribunal also considered whether certain days spent in the UK following cancelled flights could be excluded under the exceptional circumstances provisions.

One of Mr Parker’s flights to Dublin was cancelled due to severe weather conditions. HMRC argued that alternative arrangements could potentially have been explored. However, the Tribunal was unwilling to judge the situation in hindsight. It accepted that the disruption was outside Mr Parker’s control and that his actions in the circumstances were reasonable.

The question is what a reasonable person could do at the time, not what might have been possible in perfect conditions. Parker is an acknowledgement at Tribunal level that the rules have to be applied with common sense. This is a necessary clarification, and it supports a far more practical approach for future cases.

Why evidence matters

Parker also highlights the importance of maintaining detailed travel records. It reaffirms the evidential burden on the taxpayer. The outcome turned not only on legal interpretation but on the completeness of Mr Parker’s well documented records. Mr Parker was able to produce boarding passes, hotel invoices, cancellation notices and evidence of wider travel disruption. That documentation proved central to the Tribunal’s assessment of his movements.

Therefore, for individuals operating close to SRT thresholds, maintaining a clear documentary record is increasingly important. Residence disputes are often determined as much by evidence as by the legislation itself.

Practical implications for internationally mobile individuals

Conclusively, as the saying goes, it is always better to be safe than sorry – leaving a margin is essential. The Parker case shows how quickly things can go wrong when you operate right up against the limits. One cancelled flight or unexpected delay can tip a taxpayer over the threshold, and even if they eventually win, the process can involve months, or years, of HMRC scrutiny. Keeping a comfortable buffer below the relevant day limits is the simplest way to avoid unnecessary risk.

The decision also serves as a reminder that while the SRT itself is statutory, its application still depends heavily on the facts of each case and the quality of the supporting evidence. In other words, the decision is a blueprint for how a taxpayer must prepare if they wish to defend their residence position.

Our insight

In our experience, residence disputes rarely begin with a single missed day. More often, they arise where an individual has spent years travelling internationally in a way that feels commercially sensible, only for those arrangements to be challenged later with the benefit of hindsight. The Parker decision reflects many of the practical issues we see in advising internationally mobile clients, particularly where flight routing, family commitments, business travel and incomplete historic records create uncertainty around the matter of UK tax residence.

Frequently asked questions about the Statutory Residence Test

Do airport stopovers count as days spent in the UK for tax residence?

Not always. The Parker decision confirms that where an individual is genuinely in transit through the UK as part of international travel, those days may not count toward the UK day total under the SRT, even where separate tickets or overnight airport stays are involved.

Can cancelled flights affect UK Tax residence?

Potentially yes. When travel disruption is outside the taxpayers’ control, such as severe weather, certain days may qualify for exclusion under the SRT’s exceptional circumstances provisions. This, however, will depend on the facts and evidence available.

What records should I keep to prove my tax position?

Individuals operating close to SRT thresholds should keep:

• Boarding passes;
• Flight confirmations;
• Hotel bookings;
• Passport records;
• Calendar entries;
• Evidence of delays or cancellations.

The Parker case shows that documentary evidence can be decisive.

How Gherson can assist

The Gherson Team are highly experienced in advising on all UK residency and tax matters. If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026