Arctic Systems full judgment now available

Re: Summary ?

One thing has always puzzled me about the PCG - they have always cllaimed that just being a member gave you access to enough resource to find out all about IR35 and how to circumvent it yet before this new boogeyman appeared they were constantly bombarding me (when I was a member) with ads for seminars on it.

Presumably the same now applies to S660a

It seems to me the biggest danger to the PCG would be the resolution of these without a new boogeyman arising to pull in the membership fees.

Summary ?

Can you please provide a basic summary of the Seminar ?

S660

Cheers John, will make interesting reading on the way down to London for the PCG's S660 seminar on Wednesday evening.....anyone elase attending?

You're right Mal but 'twas ever thus

Re:subsection 6

Organising your affairs to pay less tax is not wrong.

Oh you poor misguided fool. Avoidance is positively illegal these days! Do pay attention

Re:subsection 6

Justic Park says of the ss6 get-out clause:

In my judgment the anomaly would be for subsection (6) to take the case out of the settlement provisions if Mr. Jones gave to his wife her one share. I do not consider that subsection (6) was intended to exclude a case like this from the charging provisions. It was intended for straightforward cases where one spouse gives income-yielding property to the other, and ordinary investment income continues to arise. For example, a husband gives some quoted shares to his wife (a “settlement” on the authority of Thomas v. Marshall 34 TC 178) and she thereafter receives the normal dividends which the quoted shares carry. Or a husband gives a tenanted property to his wife and she thereafter receives the normal rents. Or even a husband and wife have a joint deposit account; the husband pays his income into the joint account so that the wife now owns half of the income so paid in and she will receive half the bank interest on that money. The present case is in my opinion not realistically comparable with those straightforward examples, but it is only for cases like them that in my view subsection (6) is intended.

Again, there's a diferentiation between quoted and unquoted shares - why? He's trying to say that deliberate avoidance is wrong in his opinion. Organising your affairs to pay less tax is not wrong.

Re: Re:Arctic Judgement

The question though has not been answered...how can you find someone "guilty" without a concensus amongst the IR experts who were on this case?

In fact the judge made a point of not visiting the issue of the differences between the two Commisioners...and thus missed a great opportunity to force the IR to take a more "fair" approach to such issues.

This case just goes to show that the law truely is blind.

Mailman

Re:Arctic Judgement

Thanks John

Here:

www.john.antell.name/recentukcasesx.htm