Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles

TAXATION: Commissioner's Case No CTC 4390 2004

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : commissioner-s-case-no-ctc-4390-2004
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 12, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86753

(David Williams, Social Security Commissioner, 12 June 2006)

The separated parents each looked after all of the children for half the time. The father was the first to claim child tax credits, and was awarded them. When the mother applied, she was awarded the credits instead, and the father's credits were stopped. The tribunal awarded the credits to the father as first in time.

Only one parent could be treated as having 'main responsibility' for any one child, under the Child Tax Credit Regulations 2002, r 2.2. Agreement between the parents, joint election, as to which parent had 'main responsibility' for which child, was binding on the Commissioners; this could result in shared entitlements that could not be formally awarded, and could even result in the two parents receiving more child tax credits than would either on her or his own. Also, there was nothing in law to stop the parents informally agreeing to share the tax credit paid to one of them. In this case, although it was agreed that the optimal claim was for the mother to claim for all the children, the parents had not been able to reach agreement. The tribunal could not refuse to decide which parent had the 'main responsibility' and rely on the chronology of claims to decide the dispute. In a marginal case, in which 'main responsibility' was very difficult to identify, it would be possible, as a matter of law, to take the approach that whichever of the claims would result in greater advantage to the children, would be treated as having the 'main responsibility'.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from