Two brothers acquired a company and were the sole directors. 19 shares each were acquired by the children with their own money. Two later born children also acquired 19 shares therein with their own money from their respective fathers and others, and that the brothers had no shares. The company developed a site by building offices with the use of loans from a bank repayment of which was guaranteed by the brothers and let the offices. The company declared a dividend and the brothers, on behalf of their children, made repayment claims in relation to the tax credits attributable to those dividends. The claims were rejected on the grounds that there was a settlement in consequence of which the dividends were deemed to be the income of the brothers and not of their children. That was rejected by the Special Commissioners.
Held: The time at which the existence or otherwise of the settlement was to be judged was when the company was acquired and the shares allotted: ‘At that date a potentially profitable venture had been identified and, as will be seen, from that date the brothers did everything that needed to be done to ensure that the opportunity was exploited by the company.’ and ‘It is in my judgment plain beyond question that each brother was a party to an arrangement within the definition of a settlement and that the dividends paid to the four older children were paid to them ‘by virtue or in consequence of’ that arrangement. The brothers together arranged for shares in the company to be allotted to the four older children; and they arranged for the negotiations with British Rail to be opened, for the agreement with British Rail to be entered into and for the site to be developed by the company. The steps they took were thoughout directed to achieving the end that was in fact achieved, namely of ensuring that the company and so indirectly the four older children (to the extent of their respective shareholdings) took the benefit of the development of the site at no cost or risk to themselves.’ Referring to the case law: ‘In deciding whether an arrangement is within or without the classes of cases caught by s.437 the starting point must be to identify the arrangement. The question then is whether taken as a whole it did contain the requisite element of bounty. To that question again there can in the instant case be only one answer. The children contributed nothing except the trifling sums which I must assume were paid on the allotment of the shares. They were exposed to no risk.’
Judges:
Vinelott J
Citations:
(1988) 61 TC 666
Statutes:
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 437
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Copeman v Coleman 1939
A company had been formed to take over the taxpayer’s business. He held the shares equally with his wife. Later the company created a class of preference shares of andpound;200 each carrying a fixed preferential dividend, the right to vote if such . .
Cited – Chinn v Hochstrasser (Inspector of Taxes) HL 11-Dec-1980
The House considered the meaning of the word ‘bounty’ in an income tax context, where it had been used by the courts: ‘My Lords, I would venture to point out that the word ‘bounty’ appears nowhere in the statute. It is a judicial gloss upon the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
Cited – Jones v Michael Vincent Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) CA 15-Dec-2005
Husband and wife had been shareholders in a company, the wife being recorded as company secretary. The company paid dividenceds to both. The husband appealed a decision that the payment to his wife was by way of a settlement and was taxable in his . .
Cited – Jones v Garnett (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 28-Apr-2005
The taxpayer worked as an information technology specialist. His earnings were channelled through a limited company. The company paid on part of its income to his wife, with the result that the total tax paid was reduced. The inspector sought to tax . .
Cited – Jones v Garnett (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 25-Jul-2007
The husband and wife had each owned a share in a company which sold the services of the husband. The Revenue claimed that the payment of dividends to the wife was a settlement.
Held: The Revenue failed. The share had been transferred to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Income Tax
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236563