Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
CopyrightGeber86  loans

Accountant’s spouse loses student loan appeal

by
14th Sep 2016
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The husband of a part-qualified CIMA accountant has lost his student loan repayment appeal after he incorrectly declared his earnings on his self assessment return.

Michael Bamidele claimed on his 2012/13 return that his income fell below the student loan repayment threshold, with his salary from TSL, the company where he and his wife were joint shareholders, as £7,488 and dividends of £32,944. The section relating to student loan repayments was left blank.

HMRC subsequently amended Bamidele’s form to include a student repayment of £2,487.

Appealing the amendment, Bamidele said the company accounts were not approved by him and that he had not approved his SA return.

The first tier tribunal judge [TC/2016/00274] described Bamidele as “an unreliable witness” after listening to his claims and answers.  

Bamidele’s argument soon unravelled once he was directed to the signature page of the SA return, where he agreed that it was his signature, but said: “I am surprised that I signed them because I hadn’t approved the accounts”.

Switching argument, Bamidele then claimed he received income of £14,760 during the tax year, which had been paid to him in monthly instalments of £1,230. He provided three months’ worth of statements but the tribunal questioned how much was transferred from the joint account in the other months.

Bamidele also complained that his wife had a student loan and received the same salary and dividends but wasn’t subjected to the same enquiry. Stephen Goulding, from HMRC’s appeals and reviews unit, dismissed this as an excuse.

The tribunal agreed. “If a person is liable to make a repayment, that liability cannot be set aside simply because HMRC have, for whatever reason, failed to assess another person who has an undisclosed liability.”  

The tribunal questioned Bamidele’s refusal to call his wife as a witness because he felt it was inappropriate. “We find it surprising that at no point during the eighteen months since HMRC opened the enquiry into his SA return, did he ask his wife whether she had approved the accounts or whether there were any differences between the version provided by Orchard [the company’s accounting firm] to HMRC and that filed with Companies House.”

The tribunal concluded that since Bamidele claimed he did not sign the company’s accounts, his wife would have signed in order for the accounts to be have been accepted by Companies House.

As the appellant’s total income was above the repayment threshold, the tribunal dismissed his appeal.

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
14th Sep 2016 11:12

I like the bit where he tried to drag his wife down with him. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when she finds that out - may be from reading this!

Thanks (4)
By CazzyT
14th Sep 2016 12:21

What an utter waste of time!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By The Black Knight
14th Sep 2016 13:58

WTF
a waste of the tribunals time? are CIMA going to expel him? surely this is bringing the profession into disrepute if CIMA do have any professional standards that is?

Thanks (2)
Replying to The Black Knight:
avatar
By petestar1969
15th Sep 2016 12:26

The Black Knight wrote:

WTF
a waste of the tribunals time? are CIMA going to expel him? surely this is bringing the profession into disrepute if CIMA do have any professional standards that is?

Is he a CIMA member? The article refers to his wife being part-qualified CIMA but says nowt about his status.

Thanks (2)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
14th Sep 2016 14:26

Is there any evidence that the wife was involved in preparing the return? If not, why is her profession mentioned in this article at all?

As it stands, the headline and opening paragraph imply that she screwed up. It is only in reading the detail that you find, unless I am missing something, that the husband alone appears responsible for the error.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By MarkKing
16th Sep 2016 12:19

That said, in trying to throw his wife under the same bus his evidence does imply she incorrectly prepared (or approved) her own tax return which should have had repayments on it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rememberscarborough
14th Sep 2016 15:58

So this bloke has been to university (at our expense until he pays his loan) yet only "earns" £7k a year. Great advertisement for our education system isn't it...

Thanks (2)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
14th Sep 2016 17:20

LMAO what an idiot

Thanks (0)