A limited use for limited companies?
Mercer, Chris
A limited use for limited companies? - 2005 - Letting Update Journal 13(2) July 2005, 20-21(2) .
Examines "Jones v Garnett" ([2005] STC (SCD) 9, unreported) known as the "Artic Systems" tax case, which has considerable implications for small businesses and some buy-to let landlords, particularly for anyone who is a director of a small limited company and perhaps part of a husband and wife operation. Artic Systems was a limited company owned by a husband and wife, where the husband drew a salary well below his earning power but received substantial dividends, half of which went to his wife on her 50% interest in the company. It was confirmed on appeal ([2005] EWHC 849 (Ch), The TImes 17 May 2005) that the dividends paid to the wife were income and therefore liable to tax. Argues that the case is another attack on the advantages of incorporation. Provides a number of tax tips particularly in respect of taking profits as dividends and concludes with advice on the situation arising from this case, which may be further appealed.
INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1988 S660G
INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1988 S660A
ARTIC SYSTEMS CASE
JONES V GARNETT (HMIT) (2004)
JONES V GARNETT (HMIT) (2005)
A limited use for limited companies? - 2005 - Letting Update Journal 13(2) July 2005, 20-21(2) .
Examines "Jones v Garnett" ([2005] STC (SCD) 9, unreported) known as the "Artic Systems" tax case, which has considerable implications for small businesses and some buy-to let landlords, particularly for anyone who is a director of a small limited company and perhaps part of a husband and wife operation. Artic Systems was a limited company owned by a husband and wife, where the husband drew a salary well below his earning power but received substantial dividends, half of which went to his wife on her 50% interest in the company. It was confirmed on appeal ([2005] EWHC 849 (Ch), The TImes 17 May 2005) that the dividends paid to the wife were income and therefore liable to tax. Argues that the case is another attack on the advantages of incorporation. Provides a number of tax tips particularly in respect of taking profits as dividends and concludes with advice on the situation arising from this case, which may be further appealed.
INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1988 S660G
INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1988 S660A
ARTIC SYSTEMS CASE
JONES V GARNETT (HMIT) (2004)
JONES V GARNETT (HMIT) (2005)