Arctic Systems: the saga continues...

You may recall that earlier this week Cathy Corns, Corporate Tax Partner at Mercer & Hole wrote an article on the Jones v Garnett case for her SME Blog.  Following on from this piece Cathy has submitted an additional blog on the topical "Arctic Systems Ltd" case.

The House of Lords issued their judgement in the case of Jones v Garnett (also known as the “Arctic Systems Ltd” case) on 25 July 2007. To much rejoicing the case was decided in favour of Mr and Mrs Jones. However, the Revenue is a bad loser.

On 26 July a written Ministerial statement was issued by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, announcing the intention to change the law.

Using the standard “the Government is committed to maintaining fairness in the tax system” statement the Government now believes it needs to do something to “ensure that there is greater clarity in the law regarding its position on the tax treatment of income splitting”. Actually, in my opinion, the law is now clear – it may not say what the Revenue wants it to, but that is unfortunate (for them) rather than unclear.

In the Government’s view minimising a tax liability “results in an unfair outcome” that puts other businesses “at a competitive disadvantage”. Surely competition is a vital part of a free market. Anyway, what happened on Lord Tomlin’s statement in IRC v Duke of Westminster in 1936 (yes even in 1936 people were planning to reduce tax):

“Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to result this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.”

Presumably nowadays that should finish “until the Government change the law so he has to!”.

The Government are therefore planning to bring forward proposals for changes to the law to ensure that individuals such as Mr Jones should pay tax on what is, in substance, their own income. In the meantime, (I assume, grudgingly!) “HMRC will apply the law as elucidated by the House of Lords and will be providing guidance in due course.”

A final throwaway statement – “The Government would not want commercial arrangements to be caught by any change in legislation. Consultation should help to ensure this.”

Watch this space!

The long awaited decision on Arctic Systems

Cathy Corns, Corporate Tax Partner at Mercer & Hole wrote this article for her SME Blog earlier today.

This all seems to have been going on for so long you may need reminding of what all the fuss is about; so 

 - Mr and Mrs Jones ran a small IT company of which Mr Jones was the sole director. They each owned one share in the company took a small salary and extracted the majority of their required funds by way of dividend. These, of course, were paid in line with the shareholdings, on a 50:50 basis.

Nothing out of the ordinary there so what was the problem? It seems to be that Mr Jones paid tax at higher rates and Mrs Jones did not. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) argued that the settlements legislation should apply to the dividends paid to Mrs Jones such that they should actually be taxed (at the higher rate) on Mr Jones.

The Special Commissioners and the High Court (April 2005) agreed with HMRC, however the Court of Appeal (December 2005) rejected HMRC’s argument.

The result of all this is that there has been significant doubt about the correct tax treatment and obligations to report income and dividends in such circumstances.

The House of Lords unanimously decided in favour of the taxpayer. The key issue appears to be that an ordinary share is not “wholly … a right to income” and therefore the dividends are not caught by the settlements legislation.

This represents a resounding success for taxpayers and gives them back the right properly to plan their affairs in companies and partnerships.

If you were waiting for this judgement to instigate any planning or indeed need help on amending returns for earlier years, please contact any member of our tax team