You might also be interested in
Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
About three years ago my husband was earning £51k and part-way through the financial year he took a job on that paid just over £61k.
HMRC demanded back all of the child benefit that had been paid. Seems very unfair seeing as we didn't know this new job was coming; it should be taken into account that for some of the year we only would have had to declare we were only £1000 over.
I cancelled the child benefit as soon as he took the new job but was a shock that the old job was irrelevant to the child benefit part of the SA.
The administration of this charge needs some refining. I claim/receive child benefit for my youngest brother (16), as his legal guardian (both our parents are deceased). This child does not live in my household. My live-in partner has absolutely no parental, legal or financial responsibility to this child nor any financial dependency of the child on my partner. My earnings fall between 50-60k. My partners adjusted net income earnings are higher than mine. You would think legally it is me that is liable to declare HICBC on SATR, however according HMRC it is my partner (as the higher earner) that has to carry the declaration. HMRC say they focus solely on assessing the charge based on the incomes into the household of the claimant...regardless of any legal responsibilities or dependency any individual has to the taxpayer liability supposedly falls to. I am finding this very difficult to reconcile in my mind nor does my partner understand and inclined to challenge their stance - would welcome any thoughts on this or hear from anyone that has experienced a similar encounter/predicament.
I should think HMRC do cancel penalties for failing to do something that the liable party may not be aware is even an issue.
Many couples live financially independent lives. If a higher earner fails to declare child benefit that they did not know their partner was claiming, then penalising them for the failure is grossly unjust.
Rebecca's article was published 17 June and since then the Upper Tribunal have overturned the FTT's decision in Robertson in respect of whether there was any 'potential lost revenue'. Both Tribunals however agreed that Robertson did not have a reasonable excuse for failure to notify liability. Although Mrs Robertson had been claiming Child Benefit prior to the introduction of the High Income Charge and Mr Robertson was not within Self Assessment, he does seem to have been already over the £50K threshold so this Revenue 'concession' would not have assisted him anyway.