The fact remains that people are allowed to set up limited companies, and then the shareholders are paid dividend out of the taxed profits of the companies, pro rata with the shares. The shareholders pay personal tax on the dividend so received.
No question of not paying tax, the issue in this case was whether the Revenue was allowed to "deem" that the husband as fee-earner for the company should pay tax on his wife's divis as well as his own, an issue if his income, so adjusted, went into the 40% tax band.
If they hadn't been married this matter wouldn't have arisen in the first place, so the Revenue's interpretation was effectively discriminating against married couples in business together, with unequal income streams arising from their work.
But if spouse A goes on the road to clients, and spouse B is the back-office person, that's bound to happen.
So despite them having an equal interest in the Co, the Revenue was saying "you bring in more than her, hence we want to tax you as if you earned all the company profit".
Somehow, if the boot was on the other foot, I can't see the Revenue buying an argument like that !