while i'm in a banging on sort of mood -

am i correct to think that a change in status from couple to single or single to couple is a change in circumstances that terminates a tax credit claim?

is a new claim, as a newly single person or a joint claim, required to be made, following the above change of circumstances, to enable tax credits to be awarded from the date of change?

am i correct to think that in many cases, the amount of child tax credit awarded on the new claim is exactly the same as the amount awarded on the old claim, because the basic amount for a couple or single claim is the same?

is it the case that if the old claim is not terminated promptly on the change of circumstances, and if a new claim is not made within time from the date of change, any tax credit paid between the date of change and an award on a new claim is calculated as an overpayment?

is it the case that there is no offsetting of notional tax credit entitlement against the calculated overpayment? (which would, in cases where the amounts of the award are identical, cancel out the overpayment).

if my understanding of any of the above is wrong, i would appreciate anybody pointing out my mistakes...before i go any further...: )
deeply puzzled...

Your understanding is entirely correct,

it's totally bizarre.

It would be a good idea if they (the government) told the general public about this.

All's it would take is a simple rule change. Why should the kids suffer?

Also, I bet they don't sack the top man for this.

Hi JJ

In cases where there was a late disclosure (ie more than 3 months late) that a couple had split up/started co-habitating, it is my understanding that the Revenue do now offset any 'notional entitlement' that the claimants had as a single person/couple against the total overpayment.

See tax credits compliance manual para 15550-15595

Best wishes

Derek

that one snuck by me, so thanks for that, Derek - i tracked it down on the practitioner's zone, and it wasn't easy! : ) tax credits are so occult!

i should have been pleased to find it at last, but reading it in the context of the compliance manual (in the context of an 'offence'), it just aggravated me further.

"In addition to the above points you will have to advise the claimant that although the full overpayment is repayable to HMRC we might be able to waive part of this sum. The point at which you mention this will depend on the circumstances of the case. You might have mentioned this at a meeting with the claimant in which case you can repeat it in your follow-up letter. Alternatively, you may feel the claimant will appeal against your decision in which case it should only be mentioned when you are in a position to finalise the decision. Between these two extremes there will be other cases where following a meeting the claimant has contacted you to say they now accept they were living with a partner. In these cases you should tell the claimant about the possibility of waiving part of the overpayment once they accept your conclusion. There is no right of appeal against our decision under S28(1) to recover all or part of an overpayment."

the tax credit manual is incoherent, and might as well have been written by EDS and be called 'what buttons to press'...<hint>

it is clear that the Revenue is fully aware of the difference between a 'true loss to public funds' and the paper overpayments which are created out of the legal technicalities of claiming - it's not like the distinction passed them by or sump'n...

why should there be any question of the Revenue seeking 'recovery' of payments which are not true losses to public funds, and especially from some of the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society?

i don't have good reason to believe that grace and favour ha!'remission' of these types of overpayments is being made on a reliable basis on ordinary cases (cases other than compliance queries or investigations) - i'm seeing overpayment demands for £3,500, £5,000, £7,000...backed up of course by the revenue's formidable powers of recovery, where the claimant notified the revenue of separation, and was not advised to submit new claim. i have a client who now refuses to claim WTC he is entitled to because of the trouble he is still having with one of these overpayments, which effectively amount to massive fines for not filling in the right form at the right time for any reason whatsoever. this is random tyranny!

looking at section 28, the revenue's interpretation is crying out for clarification through case law, but am i right to think that the revenue has been given pretty much a free hand? the denial of appeal rights appears to be untenable.

steve, the system is not open and accessible at all - people tax credits are meant to help include people unable to read or understand the many pages of notes, that CBI members would pay their accountants to read for them. an instruction to ensure that under no circumstances should solely technical overpayments be recovered from tax credit claimants, would at least demonstrate that a faint ember of the public service ethos remains, and that government is not wholly given over to organised crime!!!!

the top man? : ) difficult, isn't it?

i remember gordon brown doing very good work 20 years ago on social security, in a number crunching way, opposing the fowler cuts, when nobody but he and michael meacher had the stamina... and he appears to remain committed to anti-poverty, here and in africa...but he is in a different position now and has become something of an unknown quantity in blair's shadow...i find it difficult to believe that he would countenance this kind of injustice if he knew the half of it, but on the other paw, if he doesn't know, oughtn't he to know? i'm wondering whether the managerialism that has swept throught public service has rendered it unfit for purpose, (the meltdown is not confined to the Home Office, by any stretch of the imagination) as well as threatening to bring down the government. (looks like the unions are in the clear this time - having been locked out by tony blair!) it's richly ironic... : )

there are calls for dawn primarolo's head, but we are still a civilized country, and it might be more creative if some bunch takes her on a day trip to runnymede, which i'm told is an island in the middle of de nile, and doesn't let her leave until she's signed something...

still, i do remember someone saying judge us on public services, and it is always heartening when somebody voluntarily takes responsibility...before it's too late