P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:14:18    % BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES Hundreds of thousands of small f!mily businesses may now have to pay more tax after the Inland Revenue won an important case recently. The Special Commissioners court allowed the Revenue to treat all income from a West Sussex family business as if it was the husband's. Previously, the couple minimised tax liabilities by attributing some income to the wife, who had unused allowances. ——————————————————————————————————1/6—— Latest rates on National Savings 540 Grab a UK Holiday Bargain - p233 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing
P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:12:44    % BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES If a husband and wife both draw dividends from a f!mily firm, they will be treated as if all income was the husband's, says tax author Mark Largan. The wife will no longer be able to use her perkonal allowances to reduce tax. This follows the case in September of Inland Revenue V Geoff and Diana Jones. Mr Largan says the Inland Revenue used obscure tax laws going back to 1936 to win the case. ——————————————————————————————————2/6—— "Best buy" personal loans 546 NORTON LOANS SEE p615 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing
P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:12:25    & BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES The case involving Mr and Mrs Jones of West Sussex, has important implications for the tax liability of husband and wife firms structured in a similar way, says tax author Mark Largan. He says anyone who thinks they might be affected should take professional advice. "The ruling is yet another blow to family companies and small businesses who are finding the environment tough." ——————————————————————————————————3/6—— "Best buy" credit cards 546 FOR LOTTERY, WE HAVE THE LOTTO p123 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing
P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:10:11    & BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES At the outset of the Jones' case, the Inland Revenue had sought to recover £42,000 in taxes relating to dividends going back over six years. Later, the Revenue backed down and pressed for payment only from the time the action began, about a year ago. It won the case with a split decision. The Prekiding Commissioner used her casting vote to decide for the Revenue. Her colleague found for the Jones. ——————————————————————————————————4/6—— Personal Finance headlines today 531 BACK A WINNER WITH RACING NEWS p550 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing
P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:18:14    & BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES The Inland Revenue insists that its treatment of the Jones' family business does not represent a change. The Revenue said it cannot comment on individual cases and said this was not "a test case". Spokesman David Prince said: "We are considering the judgement, but clearly the decision reinforces the Inland Revenue's position on the 660 legislation." ——————————————————————————————————5/6—— Work out your holiday money 547 CHECK YOUR SHARE PRICES p520 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing
P543 Teletext 543 Oct27 21:11:02    & BENEFITS    ——————————————————————————————  TAX BLOW FOR FAMILY BUSINESSES It is "nonsense" for the Inland Revenue to claim that its treatment of the Jones' business is consistent with past cases, says John Whiting, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. He says much uncertainty remains after the decision and that it is not clear why the Revenue did not press for the claim to go back six years. "I hope the Jones' appeal. This might shed further light on the position." ——————————————————————————————————6/6—— Are you a Premium Bond winner? 539 CHECK YOUR SHARE PRICES p520 Tax facts Credit&debt Holiday £ Racing