Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 381 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CCS 5557 2014
Appellant:	CH
Respondent:	(1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (2) DN (CSM)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge M. Rowland
Date Of Decision:	06/07/2015
Date Added:	23/07/2015
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	maintenance assessments/calculations
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2016] AACR 7. Child support – maintenance calculation – whether overseas earnings to be taken into account The mother, the parent with care, applied for child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991. The assessment fell to be made in accordance with the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, which required that the earnings of an “employed earner” or “self-employed earner”, as defined by regulation 1(2) of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000 as amended by the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2012, be taken into account. The father, the non-resident parent, was resident in the United Kingdom but worked mainly in Belgium where he was paid and taxed. He said that he did not pay UK income tax because the Belgian rate of tax was higher. The Secretary of State decided that the father was not liable to pay child support maintenance on the ground that he had no income to be taken into account and, in particular, had no relevant earnings because he paid tax in Belgium and not the UK. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) rejected the mother’s appeal, asserting that the father’s income from employment in Belgium was not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and nor would it be were it not for any double taxation arrangements under Part 2 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 and therefore he was not an employed earner for the purposes of the Regulations. The Upper Tribunal gave the mother permission to appeal because the F-tT had not given reasons for its assertion that the father’s earnings would not be taxable in the UK but for a double taxation arrangement and the father’s evidence had suggested the contrary. The Secretary of State conceded that the father would have been liable for UK income tax on his Belgian earnings but for a double taxation arrangement. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. a person resident and domiciled in the UK was liable under the 2003 Act to pay UK tax on worldwide earnings (and even a person not domiciled in the UK might be so liable while resident in the UK, particularly if the earnings were received in, or remitted to, the UK), subject to about 120 double taxation agreements with other countries and territories and unilateral double taxation relief in respect of earnings where there was no such agreement (paragraph 17); 2. the F-tT’s decision was wrong in law as the father would have been liable for UK income tax on his Belgian earnings but for the double taxation arrangement set out in the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1987 (paragraphs 14, 16 and 18). The judge set aside the F-tT’s decision and substituted a decision that the father was an employed earner for the purposes of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2016] AACR 7ws.doc