header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 September 2007 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

ARCTIC SYSTEMS >>
CLARITY ON UK TAX LIABILITY FOR NON UK RESIDENTS >>
RECTIFICATION FOR TRUSTEES >>

ARCTIC SYSTEMS—THE FINAL SOLUTION

The House of Lords has now delivered judgment in Arctic Systems—otherwise known as Jones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) [2007] UKHL 35, [2007] All ER (D) 390 (Jul) and it makes interesting reading.
Mr and Mrs Jones each had one share in a company which provided computer consultancy services. Mr Jones did all the work with the clients; Mrs Jones did all the back room admin work; they took small salaries and had large dividends thereby minimising their liability to tax and national insurance contributions. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) said that it was not a commercial arrangement for Mr and Mrs Jones to hold one share each and to pay dividends in this way—it was an arrangement conferring bounty on Mrs Jones and therefore a settlement within the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, s 660A (now the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act (ITTOIA 2005), s 624) so that the whole of

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
Read All
Legal Action Group set out 2026 events calendar
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll