If you're making money working for a British company and generating funds which will be imported in to England by the employer then the company may have to pay NICs on your behalf and you personally may have to pay UK income tax on such element of your income as was raised in the performance of the above duties. I think you will find that the Jersey/UK tax treaty, as amended in 1994, will ensure that no rate other than the highest rate of tax will be paid. So you won't end up paying double tax. But you could end up paying a lot of UK tax. HMRC has had its attention very much drawn to the life styles of BA flight crews. You could reasonably expect HMRC compliance to attempt to tighten as many loop holes as they can in order to generate further income tax for the embattled country. You could also expect a significant change in attitude to what is called rebate travel, the concessions that BASSA goes on about rather a lot. This benefit represents a cash equivalent in the hands of the ordinary ticket buyer and it could/should be construed as a benefit in kind. Therefore depending upon any negotiations with HMRC, the value of rebate travel could be added to the total income figure of the recipient who could then find himself liable for tax at marginal rate in the lot. The highest marginal rate would almost certainly be as much as 40% perhaps 50% in the case of high flyers. HMRC have not done much about this aspect of compliance insofar as air crews are concerned but there have been too many heads above the parapet recently with the BA cabin crew strikes for the UK revenue to ignore an easy target for an increase in taxation. It is a small point but politics does enter into taxation matters. HMRC would be more likely in practice to be more enthusiastic on compliance enforcement in a case like this if they knew that the public would favour the action and see it as 'fair'. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the general British public would not at all mind seeing a certain flag carrier's cabin crew hammered for some extra tax after the Pimms antics that have lightened the picket lines. It will not do to argue that, you are a non resident because you spend less than 90 days in the UK and because you depart and leave without spending a local night in the UK, HMRC 6, which supersedes HMRC 20 has already seen through that and stipulated that any activity undertaken in the course of work or even family pleasure will constitute that day as being a resident day even though no night was spent in the country. That knocks what might be called transit protection from resident status on the head. Wait for the next budget in the autumn and watch what the government proposes to do with a statutory residence test. Its muddy and deep waters but certain people and groups in aviation have splashed around so much that the watchers on the shore cannot fail to have noticed what has been going on in the fish pond. Each case is always taken on its own merit by HMRC because there is not a lot in English tax law that is set out by statute. It's all jolly little rules which are completely open to jolly little interpretations but its funny how often HMRC win their cases, undertaken with the deep pockets taxpayers' money, simply because their interpretation of the rules so often seems to be the one that the courts or commissions favour.