header-logo header-logo

14 June 2007 / John Cooper KC
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Opinion , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The NLJ Column

Taxing times as Law Lords consider Jones v Garnett

The Law Lords could deliver judgment before the end of July in the Arctic Systems case—Jones v Garnett—which could affect up to 340,000 small businesses.

The case concerns whether dividends paid by a company, Arctic Systems Ltd, to a working shareholder, Mrs Jones, consisted of income arising under a settlement as defined by s 660a(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (TA 1988) and so should be treated as the income of the company’s director and her husband, Mr Jones.

The couple set up a small IT company where Mr Jones was the sole director, and both spouses paid £1 for one share each in the company. Both took low salaries and received the balance of the company’s profits by dividend, which was split equally between them and which saved them tax. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) successfully argued in the High Court that the dividends going to Mrs Jones could be reallocated under settlements legislation to Mr Jones and extra tax sought upon them. This was overturned in the Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll