Arctic Systems: Tax Faculty calls for clarity

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

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

How much is the settlement

NeilW | | Permalink

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

Whose income?

adbanks | | Permalink

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?