![[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
has diverted income
has diverted income.
In this case, the mother has already made an application on the grounds of unearned income. The logic of the First Interpretation is that that application must fail in its entirety, because the concluding words of regulation 69(3) provide that the Father’s unearned income “is to be treated as nil” and (according, at least, to Mr Najib and Ms Spicer) regulation 69(5) has no application here.
Further, the Father’s child support liability has been assessed at the basic rate rather than the reduced, flat, or nil rates and there is no suggestion that he owns sufficient assets for there to be a case on that ground. The only application open to the Mother—other than the one she has already made—would therefore be on the grounds of diversion of income. It is this ground that Ms Spicer tentatively submits would provide her with an alternative remedy.
That submission is based on a misunderstanding:
- 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