Fri 03-Dec-04 03:48 PM by ken

the tax credit appeal hearing next friday concerns a backdate request,
the client was claiming as a single person, she phoned the IR on 23/2 and reported that her partner moved in on 15/2, the IR terminated her claim from 15/2 and sent her a new claim form to make new claim with her partner - as per TCA s.3(4)(b).
The new claim was received by the IR on 3/3.

The IR has taken her claim from 3/3 - date the forms received at appropriate office -as per TC(claims and notifications)reg 4(c).

the IR has refused backdate because partner was claiming JSA and prior to 6/4/04 backdates not allowed if someone on JSA,- as per TCA(commencement no.4, transitional provisions and savings)order 2003 5(4)(b)

the problem is that the partner was not claiming JSA for children, and if he had asked would have been told to claim CTC.
so client has missed out on 3 weeks money for children, but has done nothing wrong.

I'm not so naive that I cannot believe this could happen, but am I on the right track in my conclusion that the client is stuffed?

(my plan is to run it by the chairman at the hearing anyway, then to request compensation )

Jim

They are allowed to back date it for 92days, right?

There should be no reason why the CTC could not be backdated to the 15/2. He might not have been able to get WTC, but surely the CTC would have been paid if he had applied?

BTW, did they get a proper termination decision?

Jennifer

dont think CTC can be backdated - because of transitional provision regulation I mentioned, have a look at p349 of vol IV of regs books.

she didn't get a termination decision, strangely, the finalized award notice states that the single person claim ran until the end of the financial year, rather than the date that partner moved in - as one would expect.
It's a right old mess!

you are right. it is totally unfair.

have you seen billmcc's post on the following link, which refers to an appeal involving the transitional provision.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=602&mesg_id=602&page=

your case show's how unfair - and it might be well worth arguing that it is unfair, and the commencement order, operating in such a way, achieves one purpose only, and that is an improper one - of depriving people of money they would otherwise be entitled to. the tribunal would be serving justice to allow it. whether or not the tribunal allow it, either you or the inland revenue would have the opportunity to dispute it, and it would be in the public interest if it got to the commissioners.

the other dimension to this is that what your client reported to the IR was REALLY a CHANGE of CIRCUMSTANCES. unfortunately, the tax credit award system is structured so that a change from single to joint claims and vice versa, terminates an award. (Section 3(4))of the TC Act 2002. There are major problems with this kind of inflexibility, which must inevitably result in technical overpayments, in which there has been no overall loss to public funds, but which can create debts and financial penalties to the Inland Revenue.

'inflexibility' is an understatement. I mean that the system is so crudely rigid it could only work if TC claimants are permitted to acquire or dump a partner ONLY on the first day of the tax year. we could call it national re-jigjig day maybe, and the country could celebrate it annually by dancing the not so Gay Gordons and festively spit-roasting the odd sacrificial vicar or wedding photographer in our public parks - that's how related to reality the tax credit legislation is.

back on planet earth, it might be nearer the truth to say that the people who devised the legislation did such a poor job, and the scheme needs such major amendments that it amounts to live experimentation, with people being painfully used as test case guinea-pigs.

jj