‘The UK water regulator is to use new powers to block companies from shareholder payouts if they fail to hit performance and environmental targets.’
The Guardian, 20th March 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Preference shares which carried the right to a fixed cumulative preferential dividend were ‘ordinary share capital’ for the purposes of calculating entrepreneurs’ relief, the First-tier Tribunal has decided.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th May 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Company bosses who dissolve their firms to avoid paying off staff or meeting pension commitments will risk being hit with fines, under new government plans.’
BBC News, 26th August 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The collapse of BHS into administration left 11,000 employees facing an uncertain future and 20,000 current and future pensioners facing substantial cuts to their entitlements. According to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, BHS encapsulates many of its ongoing concerns about the regulatory and cultural framework in which business operates, including the ethics of business behaviour, the governance of private companies, the balance between risk and reward, mergers and acquisitions practices, the governance and regulation of workplace pension schemes, and the sustainability of defined benefit pensions.’
Employment Blog, 7th November 2016
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v First Nationwide [2012] EWCA Civ 278; [2012] WLR (D) 73
“The tax status of preference dividends from a Cayman Islands company to whose shares the taxpayer had subscribed, was determined by the machinery by which they were distributed. Under Cayman law share premium was distributable as dividend, whereas in English tax law share premium was treated in the same way as paid-up share capital. The transaction was not a sale and repurchase of securities such as to constitute a ‘buying back’ within the meaning of sections 737A and 730B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 13th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Comrs v PA Holdings Ltd: [2011] EWCA Civ 1414; [2011] WLR (D) 354
“Once it was established that payments awarded to employees in the form of shares and dividends were income received from employment the payments were liable to be charged under Schedule E and could not be charged under any other Schedule.”
WLR Daily, 30th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Legislation of a member state which discriminated against portfolio dividends received by a resident company from a company resident in a non member state party to an EEA Agreement, was contrary to the principle of free movement of capital, where that discrimination was based upon a comprehensive agreement of mutual assistance. It was not contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty for member states to exempt from corporation tax portfolio dividends which one resident company received from another whilst subjecting portfolio dividends which a resident company received from a non member state company party to an EEA Agreement or from a company resident in another member state, provided that the tax was credited against tax payable in the members state of the recipient company and the administrative burdens were not excessive. National legislation which discriminated against dividends received from non member states on the basis of the shareholding held by the recipient company in the non member state company was not contrary to article 63FEU provided the mechanisms in place to off set the charges to tax led to equivalent results.”
WLR Daily, 18th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“War between budget airline and its largest shareholder moves to high court as Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou accuses easyJet of breaching branding agreement.”
The Guardian, 13th June 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The United Kingdom tax authorities had not assumed responsibility for eliminating double taxation on the dividend paid by a UK subsidiary to a parent resident in the Netherlands or Italy in circumstances where the UK had not levied corporation tax on the dividend.”
WLR Daily, 15th February 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Husband not liable for tax on his wife’s private dividend
Jones v. Garnett (Inspector of Taxes)
House of Lords
“A spouse who used a private company to transfer some of his earned income to the other spouse was not liable to pay tax on that income, provided the other spouse’s shares in the company were ordinary shares which carried a right to more than mere income.”
The Times, 9th August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Jones v Garnett (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2007] UKHL 35
“A husband who provided his services to the market via a private company which his wife co-owned, thus distributing his earned income between them both via dividend, was not liable to tax on the income transferred to the wife, pursuant to section 660A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, provided the wife’s shares in the company were ordinary shares which carried a right to more than just income.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A couple who fought HM Revenue & Customs all the way to the House of Lords sparked a wide-ranging review of Britain’s tax system yesterday, after winning their landmark case.”
The Times, 26th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Small businesses were celebrating victory yesterday after the House of Lords dismissed an appeal by HM Revenue & Customs in a landmark tax case, and gave the legal all-clear to a tax-saving arrangement used by thousands of husband-and-wife operations.”
The Independent, 26th July 2007
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“HM Revenue and Customs suffered a major defeat today when the House of Lords gave the legal all clear to a tax saving arrangement used by thousands of husband-and-wife small businesses.”
The Times, 25th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Tens of thousands of small businesses could face a combined tax bill of £1 billion if the Law Lords rule in favour of the Treasury in its long-running battle against a small business owned by a married couple.”
The Times, 6th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“A landmark court case that will decide whether hundreds of thousands of owner-managed small businesses will face significantly higher tax bills began today in the House of Lords.”
The Times, 5th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024