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 writes to non-domiciled taxpayers following rule changes
HMRC has begun issuing “one-to-many” letters to individuals affected by recent changes to the tax rules for non-UK domiciled taxpayers. The letters prompt recipients to review their tax position under the new regime. What does this mean if you receive one?
-
Can officers ignore minor input tax errors?
If your business has claimed input tax on an invoice where the supplier has charged VAT incorrectly, HMRC can disallow your claim by issuing an assessment. Can the officer waive that power to achieve a common sense outcome?
-
Practical guide: Tax-efficient will planning with residential property
An individual has a significant property portfolio which provides them with their sole source of income. They want to gift shares in some property to their daughter but retain the income. Can they do this without triggering the reservation of benefit rules?