Arctic Systems: Tax Faculty calls for clarity

Share this content
2

A summary of the High Court decision handed down this week in Jones v Garnett has been published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.

The summary, written by barrister Harriet Dutton, is reproduced below.

The ICAEW's Tax Faculty has published its initial reaction to the decision.

It would appear that the judgment will show a "resounding win for HMRC - with some rather unhelpful comments about husband and wife tax planning," the faculty said.

A lot of the faculty's members will "read the report and still be unsure what side of the line their clients fall" because the case seems "unlikely to provide real clarity on whether you [are] a 'good tax planner' or an unacceptable tax avoider in relation to the advice given to your clients".

The faculty's note to members added: "The case is likel...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By NeilW
29th Apr 2005 19:33

How much is the settlement
According to the case, I can't see how the Revenue can ask for all the dividends paid to the wife to be deemed as income of the husband.

Surely it can only be an amount that would make the low salary a 'market rate salary'.

NeilW

Thanks (0)
avatar
By adbanks
30th Apr 2005 09:35

Whose income?
As an alternative to Neil's valid observation, whose income is it in the first place?

Given that only Geoff performed services for the client, either the fees earned are entirely Geoff's, or they are not...

If the fees are not entirely Geoff's then (surely) there is no settlement, as they are not Geoff's to give away.

And given that the prior PAYE/IR35 audit (which precluded the retrospectivity) cleared Arctic of IR35... by implication, the fees were not Geoff's personal income to settle?

Thanks (0)