[2025] UKUT 166 (AAC)

in this regard, the position is similar to that in HMRC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and GS [2023] UKUT 9 (AAC) where the Upper Tribunal considered a regulation containing a requirement that the Secretary of State “is satisfied that the claimant meets [the relevant conditions]” (see [17]). The Upper Tribunal explained that this meant consideration of whether, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of State was so satisfied was required. It was not necessary to consider whether the Secretary of State should properly have been satisfied [25]:

“The language of [the relevant regulation], particularly the statutory focus of it applying where a claim ‘is’ made and where the Secretary of State ‘is’ satisfied, is the language of fact. The language used is not concerned with any wider issue of whether the claim was properly made or the Secretary of State was properly satisfied that the specified basic conditions were met. Had that been the intention then such language could have been used…”

That reasoning applies equally to s.4(2)(a) of the 2014 Act.

if there was any room for doubt about this, HMRC’s interpretation is consistent with s.30(11) of the 2014 Act which confirms that HMRC can, in due course, change its view about an individual’s eligibility, but that any such change does not impact anything which occurred by reason of s.30 (in other words, a change in view as to eligibility does not impact a prior termination of tax credits).