Treaties do not usually make dual residence disappear at the domestic-law level
The OECD model is the best clean teaching document here because it shows the problem in the right order. An individual can be resident in both contracting states under domestic law, and only then does the treaty tie-breaker analysis start. That means the treaty is not erasing the domestic-law question first. It is resolving which state gets treaty residence priority for the relevant treaty purposes.
The tie-breaker sequence is factual and evidence-heavy
The standard sequence is permanent home, centre of vital interests, habitual abode, nationality, and finally mutual agreement if the earlier steps do not settle the issue. HMRC's manual and HS302 bring that down to earth for actual taxpayers: people need to work through the treaty article, the facts of their life, and the evidence that supports the claimed residence outcome. So this is not a place for general lifestyle storytelling. It is a place for documenting where home access exists, where personal and economic ties are strongest, and what the treaty text actually says.
The safest treaty habit is to read the model for architecture and the signed treaty for the real answer
The OECD material teaches the structure beautifully, but it is not itself the signed treaty between two states. HMRC's guidance is careful on that point too. The bilateral treaty still governs the actual claim, and taxpayers need to fit their facts to that text rather than to a generic blog explanation. The practical lesson is simple: domestic law first, treaty article second, evidence all the way through.
Educational content only
This guide is for general education, not personalized tax advice. Tax rules change and your facts matter — confirm anything important with a qualified professional or the cited official source before taking action.