Taxpayer loses child benefit charge row in unusual circumstances
The First Tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal involving a divorced taxpayer who left the family home but continued to be liable for the high-income child benefit charge, but with some unusual circumstances. What happened?
Mr Meades (M) and his first wife had a child in 2012, but separated in July 2017 and divorced on 4 April 2019. During the 2019/20 tax year, M married his second wife, whom he lived with for the entire tax year. The divorced couple had received child benefit throughout - the amount being paid into M's first wife's account. HMRC assessed additional tax of £1,076 for Mr M in 2019/20, on the basis that the high income child benefit charge was due for the year. He appealed on the basis that he and his first wife were not partners per the legislation.
Unfortunately for M, he had made the original application in his name. Even though he had never received any of it and the child mainly lived with his ex-wife, the claim was still in his name. The appeal was dismissed.
The better thing to do would have been for M's ex-wife to take over the claim. She could then continue to receive the payments with no charge on M.
Related Topics
-
HMRC reminds employers about payrolling benefits deadlines
HMRC is reminding employers of key dates and preparations ahead of the transition to real-time payrolling of benefits in kind (BiKs). With an important voluntary registration deadline approaching, what do payroll teams need to know?
-
Why do frozen mileage rates affect VAT?
Your business pays a fixed mileage allowance to staff who use their private cars for business travel. The rates published by HMRC have been frozen since 2011 but is this relevant to determine how much input tax you can claim on the payments?
-
HMRC restarts direct recovery of tax debts from bank accounts
HMRC has resumed use of its Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) powers, enabling it to recover unpaid tax directly from the bank accounts of businesses and individuals who have ignored repeated attempts to settle outstanding liabilities. What does this mean in practice for business owners and directors?