Income Splitting with Spouse....

[THEPUMA]

Mal/All

what's your view on the "joint account" connundrum? Wasn't a case lost by a husband and wife recently because the wifes divi was paid into a joint account that the husband had access to?

Of course there is an easy fix to this, but how seriously should we take this?

thanks,

Did you read that in The Telegraph?

If so, I think they are referring to the Patmore case and I think the article is misleading. As far as I can recall, there was no particular issue in that case regarding joint accounts.

PUMA

[monobrow]

Did you read that in The Telegraph?

no way, that's far too intellectual a rag for me!

[Fred Bloggs]

Did you read that in The Telegraph?

If so, I think they are referring to the Patmore case and I think the article is misleading. As far as I can recall, there was no particular issue in that case regarding joint accounts.

PUMA

Yes, I think having a joint account which the divis were paid into was a contributory factor in the losing of that case.

[SueEllen]

Mal/All

what's your view on the "joint account" connundrum? Wasn't a case lost by a husband and wife recently because the wifes divi was paid into a joint account that the husband had access to?

Of course there is an easy fix to this, but how seriously should we take this?

thanks,

You mean this case - Pitmans Solicitors News - Pitmans Lawyers - Reading Berkshire - Thames Valley - London Law Firm or here - http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic...ts-case/444332

[Fred Bloggs]

You mean this case - Pitmans Solicitors News - Pitmans Lawyers - Reading Berkshire - Thames Valley - London Law Firm or here - http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic...ts-case/444332

That's the one-

This is covered in the Patmore case as the court ruled that a gift would not be “an outright gift” if the donor received subsequent benefit, for example subsequent dividends are paid into a joint bank account or used to discharge a joint liability.

[THEPUMA]

I've just skim-read the full verdict again and still can't see anything about joint accounts, although I must admit I got a bit glassy-eyed towards the end.

It is quite an important point though. Can anyone else see a reference to dividends being paid into joint accounts?

the Patmore v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 334 (TC) (14 July 2010)

PUMA

[malvolio]

I've just skim-read the full verdict again and still can't see anything about joint accounts, although I must admit I got a bit glassy-eyed towards the end.

It is quite an important point though. Can anyone else see a reference to dividends being paid into joint accounts?

the Patmore v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 334 (TC) (14 July 2010)

PUMA

If you read it properly, the end result was that the Patmores won and Hector lost. The ruling was that, because of Arctic, (a) how the Patmores came by their shares was irrelevant, (b) how they used the money was also irrelevant as far as taxation was concerned and (c) the case should never have been brought in the first place. This was a case of Hector using public money to try a case to see what happened; luckily the Patmores wee smart enough to get proper representation.

End result is exactly as I said earlier in the thread. S660 does not apply to married couples

[THEPUMA]

If you read it properly, the end result was that the Patmores won and Hector lost. The ruling was that, because of Arctic, (a) how the Patmores came by their shares was irrelevant, (b) how they used the money was also irrelevant as far as taxation was concerned and (c) the case should never have been brought in the first place. This was a case of Hector using public money to try a case to see what happened; luckily the Patmores wee smart enough to get proper representation.

End result is exactly as I said earlier in the thread. S660 does not apply to married couples

The crucial point arising from this case as far as I am concerned is that you cannot use alphabet shares to pay disproportionate dividends otherwise you have a settlement which isn't exempt under s660.

The Telegraph is reporting that another upshot is that dividends paid into a joint account could be a settlement which, if true, is quite important. But I can't see anything that refers to that in the case.

PUMA

[Ruprect]

The crucial point arising from this case as far as I am concerned is that you cannot use alphabet shares to pay disproportionate dividends otherwise you have a settlement which isn't exempt under s660.

The Telegraph is reporting that another upshot is that dividends paid into a joint account could be a settlement which, if true, is quite important. But I can't see anything that refers to that in the case.

PUMA

How about divis paid to wife's account who in turn decides from her own free will to move it into the joint account?

[malvolio]

How about divis paid to wife's account who in turn decides from her own free will to move it into the joint account?

Now you're being silly...