![[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
[2023] UKUT 238 (AAC) | |||
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL | Appeal No. UA-2019-002667-CSM | ||
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER | |||
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) | |||
Between: | |||
DG | |||
Appellant | |||
-v- | |||
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | |||
First Respondent | |||
-and- | |||
EG | |||
Second Respondent | |||
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Poynter | |||
Decision date: | 23 October 2023 | ||
Hearing date: | 14 May 2021 | ||
Representation | |||
Appellant: | Rachel Spicer of counsel | ||
First Respondent | Shakil Najib of counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department | ||
Second Respondent | In person | ||
DECISION
- 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