RS (No.2)
RS (No.2)
In RS (No.2) the Upper Tribunal considered the application of Article 7(6) of the No.23 Order to an individual, RS, who had a tax credits award in 2018/2019 and was treated as having claimed, and an initial decision was made awarding, tax credits in respect of 2019/2020. RS then applied for TFC in June 2019, which brought the tax credits award to an end pursuant to s.30 of the 2014 Act. On 1 August 2019, RS attempted to claim tax credits. The Upper Tribunal held that RS could not do so because a claim made part way through a tax year could not be a claim “for the next tax year”. This was because:
a tax year runs from 6 April in one calendar year to 5 April in the following year (s.48 of the TCA 2002, which applies to relevant subordinate legislation by virtue of s.11 of the Interpretation Act 1978)
Article 7(6) of the No.23 Order makes a distinction between the previous award (which must have been made “in respect of a tax year”) and the new claim (which must have been “for the next tax year”)
the phrase “for the next tax year” involves a reference to the next tax year as a whole, from 6 April in one year to 5 April in the following year, and not to a part tax year. This is consistent with both the statutory wording and the underlying policy intent
as to the wording, if the draftsman had wanted to include within the scope of Article 7(6) tax credits claims which were made in year, and for part of a current tax year, it would have been straightforward to do so (e.g. “a claim for that tax credit for the next tax year or part of that tax year”, cf. ss. 3(1) and 17 of the TCA 2002)
as for the policy intent, the purposes of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 include the replacement of tax credits (and other means-tested legacy benefits) by Universal Credit. Transitional protection typically has the effect that a claimant remains on an “old” benefit until that person ceases to satisfy the relevant entitlement conditions, at which point the individual must make a claim for the “new” benefit (or not at all). It is consistent with this approach that
transitional protection ceased (and so the option of claiming the “old” benefit disappeared) once any entitlement to tax credits had terminated.
- Heading
- Section 1
- w as HMRC v RS (No.2) (TC) [2022] UKUT 246 correctly decided in its interpretation of Article 7(6) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No.23 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order
- SC946/21/00244 (on appeal UA-2023-001612-TC ) dated 9 December 2020 that he had made a valid declaration of eligibility for tax-free childcare and so his entitlement to tax credits was correctly termi
- SC946/19/02420 (on appeal UA-2023-001611-TC ) dated 9 August 2019 that he was not able to make a new claim for tax credits for any period after 19 March 2019
- The Tribunal’s Statement of Reasons
- The Statutory Framework
- The Claimant’s Submissions
- entitlement period and therefore terminated his tax credits award immediately prior to that date following that termination, HMRC issued various decision notices and other notices, which were subject to a previous appeal. The Upper Tribunal in UA-202
- the 2018/2019 tax year. The decision notice was issued to the claimant on 11 December 2020
- Ground 2: The alleged “declaration of eligibility” was not “valid”
- he was in fact an eligible person, because tax credits were not payable in respect of the relevant period
- Issues raised by HMRC
- Ground 3: S.30 of the 2014 Act no longer applies
- UA-2023-001611-TC
- in relation to Appeal SC946/21/00244 (“Appeal 1”): on 14 March 2019, the
- in relation to Appeal SC946/19/02420 (“Appeal 2”): he was not permitted to apply for tax credits in August 2019
- Factual Background
- The TFC Scheme
- Appeal 1
- The Legal Framework
- by s.5(1) the length of the “entitlement period” is 3 months, subject to any regulations altering that length
- the day on which the declaration was made was 14 March 2019. This was the claimant’s first application
- the “relevant day” was 20 March 2019
- The declaration question
- https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190317223446/https:/www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare which contained the portal which the claimant would have used to make his application
- ( https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20190321044737/https:/www.gov.uk/apply-30-hours-free-childcare )
- The validity question
- 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
- The “other relevant childcare support” question
- HMRC’s non-ministerial position is also clear from the Explanatory Notes to the 2005 Act
- if he is right, a recipient of the childcare element of WTC would necessarily
- The ceasing to have effect argument
- comity: should the Upper Tribunal follow RS (No.2) in the interests of comity?
- The Legal Framework
- RS (No.2)
- Comity
- The “for the next tax year” argument
- Discussion
- The validity question
- The “other relevant childcare support” argument
- The ceasing to have effect argument
- Appeal 2
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 166 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)