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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll