ARTIC SYSTEMS CASE ALSO KNOWN AS JONES V. GARNETT

Artic Systems Case otherwise known as Jones V. Garnett

Artic Systems Case otherwise known as Jones V. Garnett

Introduction

The purpose of this research study will be to analyse the case study of Mr. & Mrs. Jones. The case is about Mr. & Mrs. Jones who started a company called “Arctic Systems Ltd”. The main focus of this study will be on the outright gift exemption provided under the settlements legislation.

 

Chapter Outline

This dissertation will pursue five sections which are as followed:

Chapter 1: Introduction; in this section the introduction of the theme will be given. The briefing of the entire case will be considered in this chapter.

Chapter 2: Literature Review; This section will be comprised of all the data and researches undertook on this issue. This section will discuss all the legislation issues related to Mr. & Mrs. Jones.

Chapter 3: Methodology; This section will talk about the methodology as pursued by the investigators in alignment to perform this study. The methodology can be both the qualitative study and quantitative study methodology. In this study both the qualitative and quantitative study methodology will be conducted and the data will be extracted by conducting the interview with the legislators.

Chapter 4: Results & finding; in this section we will talk about the outcomes and outcome fro the facts being undertook on the methodology section.

Chapter 5: Conclusion; This paper will talk about the deduction and in this section we will talk about that what we resolve from the drawn from results.

 

Main Research Question

For a gift to be outright should it have any situation adhered to it and in specific it should not be wholly or considerably a right to income?

 

Some Initial Reference Points

Mr and Mrs Jones did well in their three-year labour to halt the Revenue reinterpreting levy regulation retrospectively

The House of Lords directed on the 25th July 2007 supportive Geoff and Diana Jones of Arctic Systems Ltd in a judgement that has taken a levy risk from thousands of family enterprises all through the UK.

The Joneses did well in their three-year labour to halt the Revenue reinterpreting levy regulation retrospectively. As the case was all about the span to which Mr and Mrs Jones were adept to coordinate their activities levy effectively, it is of prevalent implication to businesses that are together belongs to by an income earning spouse and a non earning spouse.

The business, identically belongs to by Mr and Mrs Jones, had a revenue of round £90,000 per annum, drawn from Mr Jones' activities. Mr Jones drew a wages of £7,000, while his wife drew a wages for administrative work of £4,000, for which she worked roughly four hours per week. After costs and company levy the twosome distributed the residual £60,000 identically in dividends. As an outcome, the Jones' paid less levy and National Insurance Contributions on their earnings; because they took dividends other than wages and an important piece went to Mrs Jones to use up her smaller levy ...