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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll