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
-
Unused sales suppression tools can still trigger penalties
HMRC has published a new compliance factsheet explaining the penalties that can apply where a business possesses an electronic sales suppression (ESS) tool, even if it has never actually been used to suppress a sale. What do you need to know?
-
Accounting for VAT if there is no cash payment
Your business has submitted repayment returns for the last two quarters and you are concerned that you might have underpaid output tax on some supplies where no money has changed hands. Are your concerns justified?
-
Treatment of distributions under review
The government has launched a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of distributions and repayments of capital by companies. The proposals could affect the distinction between dividends taxed as income and capital payments subject to CGT. What changes are being considered?