![[2025] UKUT 166 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Section 1
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester dated 27 June 2023 under file references SC946/19/02420 – SC946/21/00244 does not involve an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is dismissed.
This decision is made under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
REASONS
Introduction
This is an appeal, with the permission of District Tribunal Judge McDade, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 27 June 2023.
I shall refer to the appellant hereafter as “the claimant”. The respondent is the His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I shall refer to it hereafter as “HMRC”. I shall refer to the tribunal which sat on 27 June 2023 as “the Tribunal”.
The issues with which these appeals are concerned include
the declaration question: did the claimant make a “declaration of eligibility” for the purposes of s.30 of the Childcare Payments Act 2014?
the validity question: if so, was it a “valid declaration of eligibility”? Was the “validity” requirement met in circumstances where HMRC was satisfied that the claimant was eligible because his application was successful and a childcare account was opened or, alternatively, must it determine the claimant’s eligibility for itself.
the “other relevant childcare support” question: if it must consider eligibility for itself, was the claimant in fact ineligible because he was in receipt of “other
relevant childcare support” at the relevant time?
the ceasing to have effect argument: did s.30 cease to have effect before the claimant made a “declaration of eligibility”?
- 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