UT UA-2024-001027-HRP - [2025] UKUT 227 (AAC)

EU law is not relevant in this case. The effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU is governed by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. The withdrawal took effect on 31 January 2020, but subject to a transitional period that ended on 30 December 2020. Until then, citizens of the United Kingdom, like JG, remained entitled to exercise their right of freedom of movement under EU law: see Article 10.1(b) of the Agreement. As I have said, this case is only concerned with the 2021/2022 tax year. In that year, JG only travelled to Slovenia in June 2021, five months after the end of the transitional period.

Article 1 is expressly subject to Title III of the Agreement. That Title deals with coordination of social security systems. Article 30.1 provides that some United Kingdom citizens can benefit from provisions that apply to Union citizens. Article 30.1(d) is one provision. It applies to United Kingdom citizens who resided in a Member State on 30 December 2020. Residence means, as it always does in EU law, habitual residence. This provision does not apply to JG as he was not residing in Slovenia at that date. The other provision is Article 30.1(e)(ii). It applies to United Kingdom citizens who were employed or self-employed in a Member State on 30 December 2020. This does not apply to JG as he was employed in the United Kingdom, although some of his duties could be undertaken while he was in Slovenia.

Accordingly EU law does not apply.

JG has criticised the information provided on the Government’s website and the advice given when he asked what the effect would be if MP were to go to Slovenia to look after her mother. The First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal have to apply the legislation that governs entitlement to tax credits. They have no jurisdiction to deal with the accuracy of information provided or advice given. Those are matters for the Commissioners, not for the tribunals. If the information or the advice was wrong, there may be compensation payable, but that is not a matter for the tribunals.

JG has also referred to difficulties returning to the United Kingdom during the pandemic. The First-tier Tribunal made findings on this at paragraphs [29]-[30] of its written reasons. Whatever the facts may be, what matters is the law. That was decided by Upper Tribunal Judge Buley KC in GL v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKUT 100 (AAC). He decided that regulation 4 does not make any allowance for travel difficulties during the pandemic. He added that, even if the Commissioners had a discretion to make allowance for this, it was a matter for them and not for the tribunals.

JG has referred to a First-tier Tribunal decision in respect of a different tax year under reference SC303/23/00721. I can only say that that case is not before me and, on the partial documents that I have seen, I cannot tell what significance it may or may not have for this case.

Conclusion

For the reasons I have given, the First-tier Tribunal did not make an error of law in applying domestic and EU law. As to the other matters raised by JG, these were outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. As a result, it had no authority to deal with them.