Journal :: Section 660 - Round One to the Revenue
Published: October 8, 2004
Author: Graham Dragon
Category: Tax
Permalink: Section 660 - Round One to the Revenue
This is a landmark case for a number of reasons. Firstly because it is the only one I recall in which the two Commissioners had diametrically opposed opinions and the Chairperson had to use her casting vote for a decision even to be reached. But more importantly because it has now cast in doubt the legitimacy of many apparently innocent spousal share arrangements.
The decision was announced at the end of September, but the full findings of the Commissioners were only published today (Friday). You have probably therefore heard about the case but not yet read any in depth analysis. I have read the full decision very carefully and have to say there are quite disturbing implications for those of us who own shares in our companies together with our spouses, or who advise clients in that situation.
What is quite clear is that if the decision stands, we will have to exercise very great care in the future about how we structure the ownership of small family companies. One key factor would seem to be that we should ensure both spouses are Directors, not just shareholders, as this would undercut much of the argument made by Dr Nuala Brice, who found in favour of the Revenue. It may also be the case that adopting a ?below market rate? salary and high dividend policy will now be quite a dangerous strategy in a small family company. Good news, perhaps, to those of us still trying to sell pensions under pre A-Day rules. Although the question of what constitutes a ?market rate? salary is likely to become a legal minefield.
Of course, Mr & Mrs Jones have the right of appeal, and I would be very surprised if they did not exercise this right. Dr Nuala Brice was overturned in both the High Court and the House of Lords in Jerome v Kelly, a Capital Gains Tax case which also went before the Special Commissioners, and she did not have a diametrically dissenting opinion in that case.
I will certainly be looking at the Arctic Systems case and Section 660, and how it effects us as Financial Advisers in my Technical Day on Corporate Taxation on 10th November, as well, of course, as covering many other relevant corporate tax issues.
Found this article helpful?
Why not sign up for our Journal to have articles like these emailed to you regularly so you can stay ahead of the game. Alternatively, continue reading our Journal Archive.
About Graham Dragon
Graham is a Technical Consultant. He specialises in tax planning as well as dealing with other technical matters behind the scene. He is a qualified Taxation Technician as well as having written a number of books on this subject. Graham has a sciences honours degree and the Financial Planning Certificate. He joined Cadde in 1993 after a long international career in General and Financial Management.
Read more of Graham's articles.
Note: We do not accept liability for the content of our e-mail Journal or for the consequences of any actions taken or not taken by yourself or any third party on the basis of the information provided. We are unable to advise you on tax matters. If you wish to obtain further information or help on this or on any other tax matters you should consult with a tax accountant or other suitably qualified and experienced tax professional.
Share This Article
About the Adviser Breakthrough Journal
Adviser Breakthrough Solutions provides the IFA community with a FREE and easy way to keep ahead of the game. Subscription to this journal is FREE. To sign up simply enter your name and email address below.
Journal Categories
Back Office (10) 
Client Care (7) 
Marketing (16) 
Money Making (6) 
Motivational (3) 
Tax (76) 
Time Management (3) 

