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
-
Selling spare items to your company
You’re short of cash but if you use the traditional methods to take more money out of your company you’ll pay higher rate taxes. Is there another way to extract profits without paying income tax or NI?
-
No such thing as a (tax) free lunch?
You run a small consultancy company and treat your staff to lunch in the office once a week. Your bookkeeper says it’s a taxable benefit in kind because staff lunches are only exempt if they are provided in a workplace canteen. Is this correct?
-
Judge criticises use of fabricated AI-generated cases in HMRC appeal
A tax tribunal judge has criticised the use of apparently fabricated case references generated by artificial intelligence in an appeal against HMRC. The incident highlights growing concerns over the use of AI tools in legal and tax proceedings. What happened?