Tax Writer
Share this content

Identity theft confuses NIC records

Lynn Terry argued another person had used her NI number while she lived abroad and the married woman’s reduced rate NI election recorded at that time was incorrect.  

21st Aug 2020
Tax Writer
Share this content
Long lost documents hold key to disputed NI election
iStock_Old files_Janusz Lukomski-Prajzner

The single issue to be decided in the first tier tribunal case of Lynn Terry vs HMRC (TC07745) was whether Terry had made a married woman’s election under Reg 91 for 1975/6.

If she had, Terry was liable to pay NIC at the married women’s reduced rate for the period 6 April 1975 to 5 April 1978. However, Terry argued she had not made a Reg 91 election, as HMRC had claimed.

The appeal was relevant as the tax years in which the reduced rate applied did not count as “full” for the purposes of the taxpayer’s state pension.

What is a Reg 91 election?

Under Regulation 91 of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1975, a married woman could elect to pay a reduced rate of primary class 1 NIC liability (5.85%).

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:

View all AccountingWEB content
Comment on articles
Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
22nd Aug 2020 18:37

This looks like pure 1970s errors
Not identity theft
Those were different times. Wives did not need a pension.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
22nd Aug 2020 19:16

Anecdote
As mentioned, everything was done in paper
My wife was a single lady, so was her sister with same single initial, same address asnd same employer.
Both girls were challenged by DHSS to prove that they existed as seperate humans and both worked for that employer.
An allegation was put by DHSS to the girls, not the employer. Fraud by the girls, not error by employer.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dmmarler
24th Aug 2020 10:08

Yes, everything was done on paper and it was subject to error. I found that my (very large) employer had used the wrong suffix code on my NI number and it took years to get that one sorted out. Further, you were expected to (a) change your name and (b) go onto the lower rate NI once you got married. I had a real argument over several phone calls (to my office!) when I was told that my NI had to be at the reduced rate once I was married - and I had to do a stiff letter saying they should not try to deprive people of their pension rights. Eventually they gave up.

Thanks (2)
Replying to dmmarler:
avatar
By jeremybarker
25th Aug 2020 16:24

Sounds a bit like my old employer who tried to insist in 1979 that a married colleague had to use her husband's surname.

Thanks (0)