Jump to content

James 01

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. That's OK Erika - thanks for the reply. I didn't want an argument either.
  2. Sorry I have to disagree. If you look at the 2 links in post 7 to the guidance manual you will note the guidance for before April and the HMRC web page agree as they fit together. If you read the guidance for after April 2008 it does not fit with the web page. Reason ? the web page has not been updated to take into account the changes from April 2008. That is why there is the contradiction. This is also confirmed by the link in post 9 (leaflet dated Sept 10) which agrees with the guidance after April 2008. Of course I have no knowledge of the cases you refer to ,but I think you will agree under the current system there is no reduction due (although may be given in error in the cases you refer to) after a check is started unlike as there was under the previous system. Don't bother with the web page and go by manuals and leaflets as they will be correct so it is best to go by them.
  3. I think the link posted refers to the pre 5 April 2008 system. The attached (page 9) http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/wtc7.pdf also states a reduction is only given when a person discloses before a check is started. It is only based on behaviour and the overclaim after a check is started. It is extremely unlikely the guidance manuals / and leaflet (dated September 2010) are incorrect. Were the cases referred to taken up before 5 April 2008 but finished after 5 April 2008 so still come under the old system as they were started before 5 April 2008? It is when the check started is what counts not the year(s) or when the check is finished.
  4. Nothing has changed in law on penalties since the Tax Credit Act 2002 but what has changed is the way they are administered since April 2008. The attached link seems to confirm that a reduction is only given where disclosure is voluntary: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM10780.htm As in this case the OP is already contacted there will not be a reduction. I think you are referring to penalties before April 2008 where there was a reduction for co-operation and the guidance in the manual states the difference to and from April 2008: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM10000.htm Very little in legislation on penalties but a lot written about them.
  5. How much a civil penalty will be depends on how much has been overpaid, it can go up to a maximum of £3000. Providing them with a full disclosure can result in having a civil penalty reduced by up to 50%. The £3000.00 is correct but unfortunately the reduction is incorrect because there is no voluntary disclosure so there will be no reduction.
  6. Don't know what CSSG is and Belfast is in the U.K. However what you are told is correct as when an award is unfinalised no decision can be made until a person responds to their annual declaration or if there is no response by the deadline payments cease. If 2009/10 is amended it will have a knock on effect to 2010/11 so 2010/11 has to be finalised also as part of 2009/10. Can you not get your P60s before June ?-if not the amendment cannot be made under law until 2010/11 can be finalised. If you are concerned about the current year I believe you can ask for the current year to be amended to reduce any overpayment but you will have to check this can be allowed.
  7. Contact the tax office who issued the letter.
  8. Stop worrying about this- unless you have committed other offences for which HMRC have responsibility for i.e.offences relating to arms and weapons of mass destruction trafficking then you have nothing to worry about. Seriously though somewhere on this site it states they rarely prosecute and go for civil recovery. As already stated the worse is a penalty can be charged.
  9. Under no circumstances pay anyone anything. The worse that will happen is a financial penalty. Call and agree the figures and don't involve anyone else.
  10. There may be a penalty but there will be no reduction as there is no disclosure before the check is made.
  11. Tax Credit Technical Manual says no- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tctmanual/TCTM06107.htm Tax Credit Manual says no - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ntcmanual/applica_capture/ntc0070480.htm So the answer is no- you cannot withdraw it when a decision is already made.
  12. You may not agree with it but income to be used is defined in the legislation and regulations. Where income is received in a tax year for any person in a claim but outside a claim period in the same tax year it is still to be used in the calculation. It would not matter how many claims periods there are who was or was not in a joint claim what is required is to declare the full annual income for each person in the claim regardless when the income was received. Therefore the fact the claim started in May 2009 would not come into it as the income to be used is the total from 6 April 2009 to 5 April 2010 for each of you.
  13. If you scroll down to "On duty and on call" this may answer it. TCTM02450 - Entitlement: WTC entitlement - Qualifying remunerative work
  14. They are not chasing you for Housing Benefit they are chasing you for undisclosed rental income. It appears something has linked the Housing Benefit claim to you being the landlord. Can you clarify as you state your brother was paying you money most of the time but then you state it was sporadic? Are you telling the officer you have not received rental income whereas what you are saying here you have received it? The letter itself states the Council have paid you. This information may not be 100% accurate but it is not unreasonable to consider you have received the income. Note that with the mortgage you will only get the interest element so even if the rent was not covering the mortgage for tax purposes this is not taken into account. I am not sure why you think your bank statements are not relevant. The point is they are because they will show the rental income / outgoings or if you were paid in cash there could be cash credits. Your problem may be if you insist you have not received any rent then can you pay the mortgage on this place and the place where you were living ? They will look at your means. Going to CAB will probably not help you as it is not a benefit issue. They are attempting to establish what rental income you have received. Your question about does there have to be an actual profit to chase you then the answer is no because this is what they are establishing. I suspect the information held is in electronic form instead of someone telling someone. If you don't have the statements you will have to contact the bank. You may have to consider if you were receiving tax credits the rental income may affect this and if you have sold the property there could be a Capital Gain.
  15. I am having a problem following this and something has to be wrong from what you are saying. Can you clarify when your payments actually ceased? Were you paid WTC and CTC? Has one element ceased? When you called the Contact Centre you mentioned they ceased August 2006 or have they continued from August 2006 to when? So you notify a change of circumstances but the change is not processed so you were receiving payments from August 2006 to 5 April 2007. If that is the case you would also have received payments from 6 April 2007 to when the award would cease due to not returning the renewal form. I cannot follow what you means by "Once I informed them of my change in circumstances (Aug 06) why should I be penalised because I heard nothing more for a further 7 -8 months when my claim period ended and I was invited to claim again". If this is the renewal form these are issued in cases where there is an award for all or part of the previous year. Their purpose is to finalise the previous year and re-set the award for the current year/ or finalise the previous year only. As I said about the recovery they are correct to pursue the debt based on what they have. They have a debt which as far as they are concerned is final so they can and will pursue it. They would not require you to admit liability to pursue it and as stated if it has reached the County Court stage I think you have ignored previous demands to pay. I suspect the debt could be legally due but if something has gone awry with processing there may be grounds to waive all or part of it when you return the dispute form. At the end of the day if you were issued the 2006/07 final details whether correct or not you have the right to appeal within 30 days and if you have not queried it for 2 years that is why the debt is pursued.
  • Create New...