What I don't understand with this case was where the issue of interpretation came in.
If the tax law (whether you agree with it or not) states that it's designed to stop one man band contractor companies, where the wife is just set up on a technicality for tax purposes, then surely this couple would be clearly bang to rights. Let's be honest, this is exactly what this is.
However, if it's perfectly legit from a legal perspective then there should never have been a case to answer.
So, and I genuinely just don't understand it, what has been the point of confusion?
Glad they won though in the end.
If the tax law (whether you agree with it or not) states that it's designed to stop one man band contractor companies, where the wife is just set up on a technicality for tax purposes, then surely this couple would be clearly bang to rights. Let's be honest, this is exactly what this is.
However, if it's perfectly legit from a legal perspective then there should never have been a case to answer.
So, and I genuinely just don't understand it, what has been the point of confusion?
Glad they won though in the end.
Comment