Professional May 2022 (Sample)

COMPLIANCE

Tax-free childcare proves more taxing than first thought

Justine Riccomini Sc FFTAAIPA Chartered MCIPD ChFCIPP, head of taxation at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) explains what led the payrolling of tax-free childcare to the tax tribunal

Background A recent decision on a case concerning payroll and welfare benefits provides an interesting insight into the anomalies which can appear when employers dovetail welfare benefits with payroll. Both tax-free childcare and the Department of Education scheme to offer 30 hours of free childcare are administered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) under a joint online application process. Even though the legislation underpinning the two schemes is different, the decision-making process for determining eligibility is the same. Details of the case in question can be found here: http://ow.ly/6Jfx30sgPVV. In HMRC v JS and Others, three cases were being decided which all centred around the same principle – a dispute in relation to the qualifying eligibility criteria for 30 hours of tax-free childcare per week. All three appeals by HMRC were dismissed because under sections 11 and 12(1), (2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a judge can, but isn’t compelled to, set aside first-tier tribunal (FTT) decisions on an error on a point of law. The judge declared that: “In this case, the issues have become academic, and to set the decision aside Key points ● a recent case highlighting the interaction between employment taxes and welfare payments was decided ● the case decision clarified how tax-free childcare payments should be calculated ● the judge ruled in favour of the taxpayers who were deemed to be eligible for the payments.

received cash value as the reason for classing claimants as ineligible for the benefit. However, if the value of pay earned was spread across the period the claimant had worked, the result was different. The tribunal took the view that the purpose of the legislation wasn’t to trip people up, but to give people assistance, and the claimants were being denied something which was technically their right to claim. The FTT hadn’t completed the same calculations as the upper tribunal for the claimants and reviewed the spread of the payments over a year, rather than the actual periods worked. However, by aggregating the payments from both sources of income for each person over the year, it was still concluded that an entitlement existed, as the payments exceeded the threshold on a quarterly basis. HMRC had argued the expected income under Regulation 6 (1) should be calculated by reference to the amount the person expects to receive during the 13- week period, not the amount the person has actually earned during that time. The claimants argued the periodic earned income approach gives a more equitable result because it offers entitlement to free childcare during the periods when the person needs the childcare the most – i.e., when they are working. Surely this was the purpose of the regulations. In his commentary, the judge stated: ”The approach advocated by HMRC would defeat the purpose of the scheme itself, which is to provide childcare for those who work at least a minimum number of hours at the minimum wage.” The judge also felt compelled to point out the FTT judge had erred in her

would be futile.” The claims had been rejected by HMRC in all three cases but were upheld at the FTT. What were the issues for the court to resolve? The court was asked to resolve two issues: In the first two cases, the assessment of income under Regulations 5 and 6 of The Childcare (Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Extended Entitlement) Regulations 2016: ● the calculation issue; and ● in the third case, whether the tribunal decision must be ‘prospective only’ under Regulation 15 (the ‘prospective decision’ issue, considered when assessing the timescale used when the claimant makes their declaration on submitting the claim). To qualify for tax-free childcare, an individual must work at least 16 hours a week and earn at least the national minimum wage or national living wage. If the individual has a partner, they should have the same expectation. The way in which eligibility was calculated was instrumental in deciding the outcomes

Assessing the income The way in which eligibility was calculated was instrumental in deciding the outcomes. HMRC had taken the monthly

| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | May 2022 | Issue 80 14

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker