000			01827cad a22002055a 4500
001			L139865
008			110516e20070725xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u139865
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aJones V Garnett (HMIT) _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] UKHL 35, 25 July 2007. The Revenue (G) appealed against a decision that arrangements which the respondent company owner (J) had with his wife had not amounted to a settlement within the meaning of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act s660A(1). J's wife provided administrative support to his computer consultancy company. J was appointed sole director with his wife as secretary. On their accountant's advice, both drew low salaries and distributed the income between them as dividends. G argued that this amounted to a settlement, and that shares in the company given to his wife for the nominal sum of £1 had not been an outright gift within the meaning of the Act. "Held": The Act had defined a settlement quite broadly, and through the introduction of the concept of bounty. Since J's wife had received considerably more worth than her payment of £1 it was unavoidable that there had been a distinct settlement. Once this was accepted it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that a gift had been made. Once this was decided, the definition of an outright gift was no longer helpful. Appeal dismissed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aINCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES ACT 1988
650	2	4	_aJONES V GARNETT (HMIT) (2007)
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT-BUSINESS TAXATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070725/jones%20-1.htm _zView the judgement free of charge at www.publications.parliament.uk
942			_n0
999			_c79112 _d79112