Hi folks

If I was to say that it is possible for someone to get Child Benefit, Child Tax and Working Tax (Due to having a child) for a child aged 18 working full time and earning £150 weekly would you believe it?

We have been involved in the appeal below, it may well at this time only apply to Scotland, the Inland Revenue have stated that they will not be appealling to commissioners and have agreed to pay and backdate in full.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Dumfies_WR_jan_07.pdf

The above decision will have wide implications throughout Scotland, but only if mums and dads are made aware, thats your job so go find them.

Hm..

Only applies in Scotland because only with respect to Scotland does the definition of 'aproved training' in Reg.1(3) CHB Regs include 'Modern Apprenticeships'.

I'm not sure about the Tribunal's decision that there was no contract of employment. Here is an interesting (English) EAT decision on Modern Apprenticeships which gives a lot of background:
http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/UKEAT051604932005.doc

Relevant conclusions: MA's involve tripartite agreements between employer, employee and training agent. As between employer and employee the agreement is a contract of employment. The other two legs of the tripartite agreement do not constitute a contract of employment. No written contract is of course required to create a contract of employment.

However even if there was a contract of employment, the Tribunal decision with respect to Child Benefit could survive the EAT's analysis because Reg.3(2)(c) requires 'approved training that is not provided by means of a contract of employment.' The EAT analysis suggests that the approved training is not provided 'by means of' the contract of employment but by means of the other two legs of the tripartite agreement.

CTC though is different. Reg.5(3)(ab) CTC Regs refers - effective 6.4.06. To qualify for CTC the approved training (same definition as for CHB, ie, different for Scotland) must not be 'provided to him by virtue of his employment'. That seems much more difficult to get round under the EAT analysis - by virtue of/by means of - but might be possible.

Sorry to trespass on Scottish territory but I was aware of this EAT decision and it seems relevant.

Richard Atkinson