Criteria for assessment
Criteria for assessment
The Secretary of State submits that, if the phrase “by reference to” in regulation 69(3) does not mean that she must determine the level of a non-resident parent’s unearned income in the amount identified by HMRC, the law does not identify any other criteria against which she can reach a decision.
I reject that submission.
I accept that paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 1992 MASC Regulations (see pages iii-vi of the Appendix) did set out such criteria and, with one exception, regulation 69 does not.
There is, however, no need for it to do so. Unlike the original child support scheme, the 2012 scheme seeks to identify the non-resident parent’s gross weekly income rather than his net income. It follows that the deductions for income tax and national insurance contributions in paragraphs 3(5) and (6) have no equivalent in the latter scheme.
Further, the aim of regulation 69(3) is to determine the level of income that was chargeable under Parts 3 to 5 of ITTOIA: see regulation 69(2). The criteria that are relevant to that determination are—with two exceptions—set out in those Parts and in Part 6.
For example, Part 3 of ITTOIA contains detailed provisions setting out what is property income, the basis on which it is to be taxed and what exemptions apply. Further exemptions are set out in Part 6, to which Part 3 is expressly subject. The effect is that where a Part 6 exemption applies, the exempted income is not chargeable to income tax under Part 3.
The same is true in respect of Part 4, in relation to savings and investment income, and Part 5 in relation to miscellaneous income.
On the two occasions when ITTOIA does not provide all the criteria that are necessary, regulation 69 does:
Losses from a property business may be carried forward against subsequent profits. That relief is provided by section 118 of the Income Tax Act 2007 and not by ITTOIA. Regulation 69(4) therefore makes the necessary provision for child support purposes.
Certain pension contributions may be deducted when calculating a non-resident parent’s earned income. To the extent that such contributions exceed earned income, they may also be deducted from unearned income. Regulation 69(8) and (9) make the necessary provision.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background and procedural history
- Regulation 69
- The possible interpretations of regulation 69(3)
- Self-assessment and child support
- Assessment of income for the purposes of income tax
- Under section 8 TMA 1970 , HMRC may require a person to make a tax return Under section 9, that return must include a self-assessment of the amount the person is chargeable to income tax and the amount payable by him ( i.e. , the amount so chargeable
- Under section 9ZB, HMRC may amend a return
- How self-assessment operated in this case
- other UK income not otherwise declared (described as property management income) of (£17,020 less expenses of £1,201)
- The maintenance calculation
- UK income not otherwise declared
- if the properties managed belonged to another person or company and were managed by him as a business—or if he carried out the management as an employee or as the officer of a limited company—then the
- In short, the Father’s income from property management cannot be neither earned nor unearned
- The Secretary of State’s submissions
- The decision in SB
- The decision in Gray
- Criteria for assessment
- The Explanatory Memorandum
- Interpretation of regulation 69(3)
- Relationship between regulation 69(3) and (5)
- Inconsistency
- The Father’s submissions
- The decision in PP
- Discussion
- Interpretation of regulation 69
- is to be determined by reference to
- The decision in SB
- Criteria for assessment
- Inconsistency
- “Doing HMRC’s job for them”
- In performing the latter task, the Secretary of State is doing her own job, not HMRC’s. Even if she decides that the figure in the non-resident parent’s self-assessment return is incorrect, that decis
- Incentivising fraud
- Alternative remedies
- has diverted income
- an “unearned income” variation is only available where the non-resident parent has actually received unearned income: see MQB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & SRB (CSM) [2021] UKUT 263 (AA
- it is of the essence of a “diversion” variation, that the diverted income has been diverted at source to another person or for another purpose and that the non-resident parent has therefore not receiv
- Reconciling the two parts of regulation 69(3)
- In short, the regulation unambiguously means what Judge Jacobs—with considerably greater concision than I have been able to manage—says it means in Child Support: The Legislation: see paragraph 17 abo
- Conclusion
- That, however, is subject to regulation 69(5)
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)