|
|
25 Jul 2007
Taxpayers were celebrating an epic tax victory against HM Revenue & Customs this morning as Geoff and Diana Jones, the owners of Arctic Systems, won a unanimous victory in the Lords.
The case, which has run since the Jones' appeared in front of the special commissioners in September 2004, finally concluded at the Lords, who ruled 5-0 in favour of the Jones's.
The case has revolved around the way the couple split their salary and dividend between them within the structure of their company Arctic Systems.
Advisers were thrilled with the result.
'The CIOT is delighted that, after such a long battle, the House of Lords has confirmed that HMRC were wrong to attack husband and wife businesses in this manner,' said Anne Redston from the CIOT said.
Further reading:
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
Not a test case?
It is interesting to note that the outcome of this case, a loss by HRMC, has prompted to the government to say that new legislation will be introduced to "close the loophole".
Yet, this same government refused to allow this as a test case, which meant Mr and Mrs Jones had to fund their fight themselves, with the help of the PCG.
If the win of this case by the Jones's prompts new legislation, how can it not have been a test case?
Posted by: Mr Davis, 26 Jul 2007 | 00:00