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 the sum paid to the taxpayer’s wife as a settlement made on her by the husband. The taxpayer appealed.
Held: His appeal failed. The term ‘settlement’ was to be interpreted widely. It was critical to the Revenue’s case to establish that what occurred was an ‘arrangement’. Within the authorities cited it counted as such. If there was an arrangement and a setlement, the tax payer was the settlor, and was taxable. The taxpayer worked within the company for far less than his true earning power. This case need not have very wide ranging conclusions.
Park J
Times 17-May-2005, [2005] STC 1667
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 660A(I) 660G(I)
England and Wales
CitedCrossland v Hawkins CA 1961
The taxpayer, a well known film actor, agreed to work through a company for three years being paid andpound;50 per week. The shares were transferred to his wife and accountant. His father in law set up a andpound;100 settlement for the benefit of . .
CitedCopeman 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 . .
CitedYoung 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 . .
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, . .
CitedInland Revenue Commisioners v Leiner 1964
An interest free loan was made to an associated company from the taxpayer’s mother which was then replaced by another interest free loan from the taxpayer. The circle of loans included an interest bearing loan to the taxpayer from the trustees of a . .
CitedMills (Hayley) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 12-Feb-1974
Surtax – Settlement – Arrangement – Settlor – Fees for actress’s services paid to company but enuring for her benefit – Actress aged 14 when arrangements made – Settlement with more than one settlor – From whom income originates – Income Tax Act . .
CitedBulmer v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1967
Shareholders fearing a takeover sold their shares to another company’s subsidiary at below market value, the balance of value outstanding on an interest free loan. A commercial loan was used to buy further shares. When the loan was fully repaid the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromJones 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 . .
At First InstanceJones 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.224920