Key Facts
- •Mr. Holland claimed Child Benefit for his children since 2004, but after separating from his wife in 2012, the benefit was paid to her.
- •He continued making Child Maintenance payments exceeding the Child Benefit amount.
- •HMRC assessed him for High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 and 2019/20.
- •Mr. Holland appealed, arguing he never received the Child Benefit.
- •HMRC initially issued penalties, but these were later cancelled.
Legal Principles
A person is liable to HICBC if their adjusted net income exceeds £50,000 and they are entitled to Child Benefit (Condition A of section 681B ITEPA 2003).
Income Tax Earnings and Pension Act 1992 (ITEPA), sections 681B-681H
A person is entitled to Child Benefit if they are 'responsible' for a child (section 141 SSCBA 1992). Responsibility includes contributing to the child's cost at a rate not less than the Child Benefit rate (section 143(1) SSCBA 1992).
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (SSCBA), sections 141, 143(1)
Even if Child Benefit is paid to the mother, the father retains priority to entitlement if he was awarded it (Meades v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 544 (TC)).
Meades v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 544 (TC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; assessments upheld.
Despite not receiving the Child Benefit, Mr. Holland remained entitled to it due to his continued Child Maintenance payments exceeding the benefit amount and his initial claim. He therefore met Condition A for HICBC liability.