Multimillionaire accountant, 70, who signed everything over to his wife to dodge debts could lose his thatched-roof cottage over £600k unpaid tax bill

By OLIVIA DAY, ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR, AUSTRALIA Published: 10:17, 13 July 2026 | Updated: 10:17, 13 July 2026 A former tax accountant who once earned £2million a year could now lose his 'chocolate box' country home after failing in a court fight over assets he signed over to his wife before being hit with a £600,000 tax bill. John Dixon, 70, a former partner at top accountancy firm Ernst & Young who was invited to Downing Street and appeared before parliamentary committees, was made bankrupt in 2017 owing HMRC £600,000 in unpaid tax, penalties and interest. But when trustees sought to recover money for creditors, they discovered Mr Dixon had years earlier signed a series of trust declarations transferring all of his existing and future assets to his wife, Janet.  A judge later ruled the arrangements, established before his tax bill arose, were intended to put assets beyond the reach of potential creditors, clearing the way for trustees to pursue the couple's property. The Dixons now face losing Toad Hall, their Grade II-listed three-bedroom thatched cottage in the Eardisland village in the Welsh Borders, after trustees launched proceedings to take possession and sell the home.  At a High Court hearing last week, Mr Dixon claimed he had been 'mugged' by an 'unfair' court process, with the fear of eviction hanging over him and his wife. In her ruling on the dispute last year, Judge Sally Barber heard Mr Dixon had executed a series of declarations of trust in 2010 in favour of his wife.  The documents purported to transfer all his present and future assets to Mrs Dixon, including a portfolio of properties, cars and future income.  John Dixon, 70, a former partner at top accountancy firm Ernst & Young who was invited to Downing Street and appeared before parliamentary committees, was made bankrupt in 2017 owing HMRC £600,000 in unpaid tax, penalties and interest (pictured outside High Court) The Dixons now face losing Toad Hall, their Grade II-listed three-bedroom thatched cottage in the Eardisland village in the Welsh Borders (the £730,000 home is pictured) Among the assets was Pennymore House in Argyll, Scotland, which was later sold, with proceeds of £126,000 paid to Mrs Dixon. The couple's former eight-bedroom home, The Stonehouse in Woolhope, Herefordshire, complete with a swimming pool, was also transferred to Mrs Dixon before being sold for £1.2million at a loss.  They later moved to Toad Hall in the village of Eardisland near Leominster, a property now estimated to be worth about £730,000. Despite transferring his assets, Mr Dixon continued as Ernst & Young's managing partner and UK tax chief for four more years, earning around £2million annually. Mrs Dixon was described in court as a housewife who also ran a fabrics business. In September 2015, HMRC served Mr Dixon with a demand for £627,302. He responded by stating his assets were 'nil', arguing the trust arrangements had transferred all assets and future income to his wife. He was declared bankrupt in 2017 and was discharged only this year. Trustees Emma Sayers and Jeremy Willmont later brought legal action, arguing the trust declarations were intended to place assets beyond the reach of future creditors. Representing himself, Mr Dixon denied this was his intention. He said the arrangements were part of inheritance tax planning and reflected concerns about the economic climate following the financial crisis.  Despite transferring his assets to his wife, Mr Dixon (pictured) continued as Ernst & Young's managing partner and UK tax chief for four more years, earning around £2million annually But Judge Barber concluded the declarations were intended to put assets beyond the reach of anyone who might later make a claim against him. She ruled the trusts should be set aside, opening the way for trustees to pursue assets to satisfy his debts. Mr Dixon returned to the High Court last week seeking permission to appeal on the basis that what happened was 'unfair'.  He told Mr Justice Richards the case was of 'critical importance' to him and his wife because trustees were seeking possession and sale of their home. 'It's not a happy situation to be in,' he said. Mr Dixon also told the court that a freezing order over the couple's assets meant they were surviving on state pensions and could not afford legal representation. Complaining about having to fight the case alone against experienced lawyers, he said: 'We basically were sort of mugged over three days. I find it very difficult to manage that sort of situation.' He argued there was no evidence he intended to shield his assets from creditors when the trusts were created because he had no tax debt at the time. EY's global and UK headquarters just east of London Bridge is pictured 'Do you really think that I would jeopardise a career of so many years - I was in Number 10 Downing Street 20 times - over just over £500,000 worth of penalties and interest when I was earning £2million a year?' he told the court. 'It's inconceivable that I would have done that.' Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Richards said Judge Barber had been entitled to find that the trusts were intended to defraud creditors. 'There were matters for the judge to weigh in the balance,' he said. 'The fact he considers a different conclusion was available doesn't approach the threshold for a realistic challenge to findings of fact.' Refusing permission to appeal, the judge added: 'I have reached the very clear conclusion that there isn't an appeal here with sufficiently realistic prospects of success.' The ruling leaves trustees free to continue their application for possession and sale of the couple's cottage at a future hearing.