Elizabeth Colman
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
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 legal battle, which started in 2003, reached the House of Lords yesterday. An estimated 30,000 couples will face crippling tax bills if the Treasury wins in its attempt to enforce a clampdown.
The Treasury is cracking down on married couples who create companies based around one spouse’s work. In 2003 HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) sent a £42,000 tax bill to Geoff and Diana Jones, of West Sussex.
Its actions were backed by a tax tribunal and the High Court, but the Court of Appeal overturned the assessment last year. This effectively shut down the Government’s campaign against couples who cut their tax bills by taking cash out of their business as dividends rather than income. Amid outrage from accountants and small business groups, the Treasury sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords this year.
Yesterday the Law Lords heard opening remarks from Michael Furness, QC, counsel for HMRC. Mr Furness argued that Mr Jones, an IT consultant, had drawn an “inadequate” salary from the couple’s company, Arctic Systems. Mr Jones was “solely responsible” for the income generated by the company, Mr Furness said.
In one particular year, Mr Jones drew a salary of £6,250 from the company, in addition to £25,700 paid in dividends. His wife, who undertook administrative duties for the company, drew £3,600, but she also received £25,700 in dividends.
Mr Furness argued that, because Mr Jones “was the sole earning power of the company” he should have received a greater share of the profits. Because Mr Jones was a higher-rate taxpayer than Mrs Jones, the profits would then have been subject to tax at a higher rate.
The Joneses set up Arctic Systems with equal shares. The company had an annual turnover of £100,000.
Lord Hope of Craighead told the court: “We have to have an eye as to how other family businesses will be affected.”
Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, argued in 2006 that Mrs Jones’s services were just as commercially important to the company.
Bill Knox, taxation chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “HMRC’s conduct towards a family-run business in this case is utterly shameful.
“Hounding hard-working small business owners in this way sullies the good name of HMRC and will not instil confidence in the UK small business community as a whole, which rightly expects to be treated proportionately and fairly by the tax authorities.
“The craven decision to pursue the case further will be at the expense of the taxpayer and will result in a damaging loss of confidence in HMRC’s record with small businesses.”
Chas Roy-Chowdhury, of ACCA Global, the accountancy body, said that married couples had been given little choice but to pay tax at the rate paid by the higher-earning spouse.
A spokesman for HMRC said: “The Government is keen to ensure that businesses have as much certainty as possible while the case continues. HMRC has issued guidance on how taxpayers whose circumstances are consistent with the situation in the Jones v Garnett case should handle their tax returns while waiting for an outcome in the case.”
The Treasury has said that £250 million is at stake under existing arrangements for married couples’ companies. The Professional Contractors Group, which has funded the Joneses’ case, said that the figure was closer to £1 billion.
Articles from our sister site WSJ.com:
You may be asked to subscribe to read certain articles
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
If this inhumane HMRC ruling goes thru, i will pack my business up and setup overseas and actively encourage all friends and associates to do so. The British economy will suffer as a result of the HMRC's petty, stupid and ill conceived attempt to waste more of taxpayers money on useless litigation.
Kamal Haider, London,
As initially soletrader and now partner in business plus mother of two children who are equally dependant on me, our life, as a family owned business, is one of hard work. The rewards are few other than we have the privelige of doing a job we love (working with Clydesdales) and developing something to call our own.
Why does the government fail consistently to encourage such business growth, we could all be on benefits as so many others,moaning that we are not "given" enough...when will the government praise, reward and encourage those who attempt to do something positive with their lives, working for realistically little financial gain instead of consistently knocking small business??
These business' are often sympathetic employers eg mothers returning to work, part time positions where we can really help, yet all too often are knocked back by ridiculous Law Lord or HMRC rulings where those in the say are dreadfully out of touch with what I term real life situations. WAKE UP HMRC!!
Annie Rose, Broughton-in-Furness, Cumbria
If the ruling does go through a lot of small businesses will fold,because they will not have the funds to pay the back tax,
uemployment will rise
What happened to the small businesses being the engine of the economy,the goverment is all talk.
Unlke HMRC we are unable to move the goal posts.
running a business in this country feels like running the 100 metres,with 2 broken legs.
graham, HAVANT, Uk
It's probably legal to have a company, pay yourself peanuts out of it, regardless of what revenue flows into the company as a direct result of your efforts, then pay out whatever is left over as a dividend.
In this case, HMRC's thrust seems to be that only one of the company's owners is earning money from a third party. I would think there are very few married partners' businesses that work like this. If not for this reason, presumably the HMRC's case would have failed long ago.
If the top rate of personal taxation, including national insurance contributions, was equivalent to the company tax rate, this problem would be avoided. It would then always be better to take the profits as salaries rather than subject them to corporate tax and then pay them out as dividends.
Debbie, Edinburgh, Scotland
Managing a small business is time-consuming; the financial and operational risks are significant, and much of the business-maintenance work of any small business owner is unrewarded. My company turnover 2006-07 was about £120,000, and I managed to draw £10,000 salary and £5,000 dividends last year: my co-Director drew less. We work about 45 hrs per week - each - for 48 weeks per year. That sum (combined) is less than thesalary of an EO (junior level of management) in the Civil Service.
I would, if not managing my business, be claiming benefits: although I enjoy what I do, financially I do not feel well-rewarded, and I don't think that those in the Treasury who structure the taxation of small businesses have the faintest idea of the dynamics of, and pressures on, small businesses - particularly those whose turnover won't support the employment of other people to carry out routine work, to release owners to seek new opportunities.
Tony Wood, Winchester, Hampshire
Labour have never liked small businesses or entrepreneurs, they want to do our thinking for us and any aspiration to become successful is stamped on. This has been the trademark of this government. It is no surprise that the Treasury is pursuing this. Let's hope the Law Lords can see the implications for the country's economy if the ruling is made against the Jones.
CA, Manchester, UK
Well, not only are HMRC making the risk of running a small business not worth the rewards. They have effectively moved the corporation tax rate from 10% to 18% and then to 22%. This means, I do not have the money I would like to re-invest into the business. Don't even mention the R&D allowance because that is an absolute con!!!
I run a small business and quite frankly, I am beginning to think my life would be much simpler if I simply got a job.
Chantel, UK,
Typically of Gorden Brown to go after the small guy !
Saying that this is what you get and expect for voteing Labour !
John, London, Uk
If the Revenue win this case, you can say goodbye to quite a few more engineers than are already leaving this country to work as 'ex-pats' in other parts of the world. They take their spending power and their expertise with them, everybody loses.
The employers who are already experiencing severe resource problems lose, th engineers themselves lose as they have to work sometimes in hostile foreign countries, the revenue who lose all tax revenue, society loses engineering expertise and so on..
Ian Turner, Aberdeen, UK
I'm no expert, and can see HMRC's point of view as far as the salary anomolies are concerned, however equal shares surely mean equal dividend entitlements.
I also don't agree with the "solely responsible for the income argument. Is HMRC suggesting that all administrative staff should work for noting? Perhaps they may like to start by setting an example!
CoogarUK, Dorchester,
HMRC & The Treasury are surprised that small business is opposed to further disproportionate taxation? This case amazes me and i am surprised that in this climate entrepreneurism is still alive. This Government will not be content until it has destroyed the will to resist of small business in cases such as these..
Louis Hemming, Worcester, Worcs
I wonder how much this has cost to get this far compared to how much the Treasury will actually net in tax revenue. Golden Gordon is determined to make working as miserable as possible in his determintation to squeeze us for every penny we earn.
Nobby Clark, London,
The treasury will loose on the long term. These type of companies will register a holding company in another jurisdiction such as Cyprus whereby the Profits made in UK will not be taxable in Cyprus.
Then the Profits will be repatriated back to the UK as dividends.
This will hit not only the Inland Revenue but other services within the country.
S. Themistocleous, Nicosia, Cyprus