Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from