header-logo header-logo

31 May 2007 / Richard N M Anderson
Issue: 7275 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

An arctic breeze

An impending House of Lords’ case should provide guidance about the way husband and wife businesses may be taxed, says Richard Anderson

The case of Jones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) arose as the result of a combination of events. A couple met and married in 1981. She worked in management until 1989 when she left her employment to start a family. He worked in IT as an employee of a number of public companies until about 1989 when he was made redundant. They decided that their best option was to set up their own business and become self-employed. The wife, they decided, would assist for some hours using the management and accounting skills she had learned while working, but would also stay at home looking after the family and the home, supporting her husband in this new venture and leaving him free to devote to it all of his energies.

options

There are several ways in which the couple could have put that decision into effect—the husband could have been a

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll