Whoops, did not mean to cause offence & ’tis probably me who should have made myself clearer – I’m going down the lines of R41 & R42.
Dividends, undistributed profits and excessive capital reserves are but three ways in which a company can hide it’s true profits.
If the claimant has 51% of the shares then there is no doubt suitable remuneration would be available on his application, even if this meant a reduction in the dividend.
If a claimant has 100% of the shares then there is no need to declare a dividend (other than for tax avoidance purposes) – all of the profits would be available for the claimant to take as income via the role as director.
Whilst the argment may not appear particularly sensible, the only requirement is that the income be available on application. If the claimant is both the director and majority/sole shareholder I acn see no real way to rebut this presumption under ordinary circumstances.
If a claimant has 100% of the shares and does all (or possibly a lot of) the work then there is an additional argument that they are earnings and should be treated income under 41(3) anyway.