'Arctic Systems' aka Jones v Garnett

The law on this is perfectly clear. The husband's employment income is taxed at an effective rate of 47.6% (IR35 and all that). Income channelled via a limited company and paid to the wife would be taxed at an effective rate of 19%. Attempts to channel income to Her Indoors are blocked via s660A ICTA 1988 (as was).

A shit law, perhaps. I, as a radical flat taxer, would tax all income at the same flat rate of (say) 30%, but hey, that's the law.

The Special Commissioner, Dr Nuala Brice, a giant among men (or women), called it right (procedural irregularities notwithstanding). The Revenue won the taxpayers' appeal in the High Court. The taxpayers then won in the Court of Appeal, and again in the self-serving glorious bunch of fuckwittery that we call the House of Lords, Lord Hoffmann, corrupt twat presiding, decided that judges aren't there to apply the law (as harsh or as unfair as it may be), they are they to preen their massive, taxpayer-funded egos.

So His Fuckwittedness accepted the Jones' claim that Her Indoors's shares in her husband's company were not "wholly or substantially a right to income".

Right, Mr Jones, can I subscribe for one share in your fucking snivelling shit little one-man band company for £1 and receive £20,000 a year in dividends, please?

No, I thought not.