![[2024] UKUT 342 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
“I do not accept the [appellant’s] argument that the First-tier Tribunal ought simply to have substituted the figures that he had provided, even though it had copies of the P60 and P11D. The First-tie
“I do not accept the [appellant’s] argument that the First-tier Tribunal ought simply to have substituted the figures that he had provided, even though it had copies of the P60 and P11D. The First-tier Tribunal was correct to take the view that it was bound to accept the figure previously supplied in response to a request for the HMRC figure. However, I do accept the Secretary of State’s submission to me that the First Tier Tribunal ought to have adjourned and required the Secretary of State to make a new request for the HMRC figure. I am satisfied that it erred in law in not seeking a current HMRC figure, because there was cogent, albeit not conclusive, evidence before it that HMRC’s figure was not consistent with information supplied by the father’s employer under PAYE regulations.”
The Upper Tribunal has held that more than one HMRC figure may be requested by the Secretary of State from HMRC, and where the figure changes after the date of the Secretary of State’s decision, the new figure may be used consistently with s.20(7)(b) of the 1991 Act, because it operates retrospectively and is therefore a circumstance obtaining at the time of the Secretary of State’s decision: FQ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 446 (AAC) per UTJ Jacobs at §20; BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UKUT 283 (AAC) per Deputy UTJ Rowland at §8, §11.
- Heading
- E FITZPATRICK
- Before: Ms E Fitzpatrick, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
- Discussion – error of law
- “I do not accept the [appellant’s] argument that the First-tier Tribunal ought simply to have substituted the figures that he had provided, even though it had copies of the P60 and P11D. The First-tie
- Conclusions