Tax Credit Conundrum

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31784
    Nicky
    Participant

    I’m dealing with an appeal against a decision that our claimant had too much income to qualify for HB / CTB.

    When he claimed on 1 August he stated he was getting ESA and that his wife was working. He also stated that he’d applied for TCs.

    A CIS check showed that TCs were in payment from some time last year and were ongoing. These were applied to his claim as income and he FTQ.

    On 19 August he called in to the office with a letter from the IR dated 12 August stating that he was not entitled to TCs from April 2010 as he had not returned his review form thingy to them. All TCs paid for the year were overpaid to him.

    A further CIS check showed that he was paid TCs up until 9 August.

    My query is, does his failure to return his review form bring him under the finding in CIS 1813/07 (which CPAG strongly suggests should be imported into HB decision making regardless of reg 40(6)) where it was held that as the claimant had told IR she no longer wanted TCs then they did not count for IS purposes even though IR continued paying them?

    So, does my appellant’s failure to return his review form equate to him saying to the IR he doesn’t want TCs any more?? :15:

    #88898
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [b:31274b0c41]CIS/1813/2007[/b:31274b0c41] is an exceptional case. The same Cmmr (as was) did somewhat fall back from that position in [b:31274b0c41]CH/4371/2006[/b:31274b0c41]. In summary, did the claimant take positive steps to stop TCs? In my view, a passive position won’t be enough to bring CIS/1813/2007 into play.

    #88899
    Nicky
    Participant

    Thanks Kevin

    #88900
    Anonymous
    Guest

    A lot will depend on the facts of the case and the evidence.

    What is more you need to distinguish between an award of tax credit and entitlement to that tax credit.

    The distinction was considered and explained recently in CIS/2761/2008 by Judge Williams

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.