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 dividend were in arrear for three years or more and the right in a winding up to a return of capital paid up. Some of the shares were taken up by his children on which they paid andpound;10 per share. Dividends substantially in excess of the amounts paid up were then declared and the taxpayer, on behalf of his children claimed repayment of the tax paid in respect of the dividend to the extent of that child’s personal allowance.
Held: The claim was rejected. Lawrence J said: ‘In my opinion, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion but that this was not a bona fide commercial transaction, and it appears to me that there was a disposition within the meaning of the definition or an arrangement in the nature of a disposition within [that meaning].’
Lawrence J
(1939) 22 TC 594
Cited by:
CitedJones 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 . .
[2005] EWCA Civ 1553, Times 03-Jan-06, [2006] 1 WLR 1123
CitedButler v Wildin 1988
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, . .
(1988) 61 TC 666
AppliedYoung v Pearce 1996
The company created a special class of preference shares and allotted them to the wives of the two shareholders and directors. When substantial preference dividends were paid to the wives, the husbands were assessed to tax on them. They conceded . .
(1996) 70 TC 331
CitedJones 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 . .
Times 17-May-05, [2005] STC 1667

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 December 2020; Ref: scu.236560