Reply To: Liability question

Julian Hobson

Hi Peter

Park SMI for a moment.

A couple in this situation are J&S liable for CT regardless of his NRPF status by virtue of s9(1) and (3) LGFA 1992.

At a point in time she successfully claims SMI because she is Severely Mentally Impaired (not ill) which means that she does not and cannot function socially.

She cannot be held to have a CT liability by virtue of s9(2) – it is though questionable as to whether she meets the SMI test in reality as in my experience doctors confuse Impiarement with Illness and they are not the same thing and have different legal definitions. It might not be beneficial for her to be SMI in this situation ?

However if she is SMI then he has to accept CT liability alone and NO CTR as you say.
If she is liable because she doesn’t have SMI then again there i a potential public funds issue.

However he can apply for a discretionary s13A(1)(c) reduction because that is not public funds.Such a reduction is not “reduction under a local authority’s scheme” which is how the public fund exclusion is set out in the immigration rules (unless they have arbitrarily changed that -worth checking).