Income shifting - It could be you

Given the Revenue’s dummy spitting response to the House of Lords’ judgement in the Jones v Garnett (Arctic Systems Limited) case, it was a safe bet that any attempt to stop husband-and-wife businesses shifting income between spouses would be hard hitting and wide ranging.

Even allowing for this, though, the consultation document released earlier this month looks likely to affect more people than nearly all commentators and tax advisers expected.

The aim of the new rules is to make sure that all family businesses split earnings and dividends “fairly” and to prevent what happened in the case of Arctic Systems Limited (where Mr Jones diverted some of the income he earned to his wife, to make use of her personal allowance and lower rate tax bands and reduce their combined tax bill significantly).

This may seem a laudable aim – especially to those of us not in a position to do the same – but, if the draft legislation does find its way onto the statute books, it will place onerous record keeping requirements on businesses in trying to justify payments to family members (and others) working in the business and create huge uncertainty for the individuals concerned but will still be very hard for the Revenue to enforce.

In any business where one or more people can control the amount and timing of any payments to partners, employees or shareholders, it is possible that those able to control these payments will have to pay tax on income they are deemed to have forgone (as if the payments had been made to them instead). To resist a Revenue challenge, the business will need to keep detailed records, to show that the amounts paid are fair, given the contribution made by each individual.

But what is “fair” – and how is anyone’s contribution measured? The Revenue’s guidance is eerily silent on these points and it seems to leave a huge gap that only the Courts may be able to fill.
Under Self-Assessment, the onus is on taxpayers to show that their calculation of their tax bill is correct. If they cannot, the Revenue will routinely charge penalties, based on the amount of extra tax found to be due. Without any indication on how to assess contributions or fair levels of earnings and dividends, it is highly likely that people who have made genuine attempts to calculate their tax bill correctly will face these penalties.

The consultation period runs out on 28 February 2008; the precise details are likely to be announced in a Budget, the following month. The new legislation will be effective from 6 April 2008.
There is little time for businesses and their advisers to consider the impact, let alone to act. If you think you might be affected by the new rules and would like to discuss what you can do before next April – and need to do after - please get in touch with Cathy Corns or me.

Pre Budget Report 2007 - Arctic Sytems

Below is a brief update on the Arctic Systems case from Lisa Spearman, Mercer & Hole Partner and Tax Plus Blog contributor.

An announcement has been widely expected and commented on in this and other blogs following on from the Revenue’s defeat in the House of Lords. This is a case of the dog that didn’t bark or at least not yet.

The announcement is that there will be an announcement shortly with a view to introducing legislation from 6 April 2008 to stop income shifting.

At the risk of being repetitive - further and better particulars will follow…

Husband - wife businesses - at long last we can plan for the future

The long awaited decision on Arctic Systems

This all seems to have been going on for so long you may need reminding of what all the fuss is about; so

- Mr and Mrs Jones ran a small IT company of which Mr Jones was the sole director. They each owned one share in the company took a small salary and extracted the majority of their required funds by way of dividend. These, of course, were paid in line with the shareholdings, on a 50:50 basis.

Nothing out of the ordinary there so what was the problem? It seems to be that Mr Jones paid tax at higher rates and Mrs Jones did not. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) argued that the settlements legislation should apply to the dividends paid to Mrs Jones such that they should actually be taxed (at the higher rate) on Mr Jones.

The Special Commissioners and the High Court (April 2005) agreed with HMRC, however the Court of Appeal (December 2005) rejected HMRC’s argument.

The result of all this is that there has been significant doubt about the correct tax treatment and obligations to report income and dividends in such circumstances.

The House of Lords unanimously decided in favour of the taxpayer. The key issue appears to be that an ordinary share is not “wholly … a right to income” and therefore the dividends are not caught by the settlements legislation.

This represents a resounding success for taxpayers and gives them back the right properly to plan their affairs in companies and partnerships.

If you were waiting for this judgement to instigate any planning or indeed need help on amending returns for earlier years, please contact any member of our tax team