Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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