ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Charities
    5. Coronavirus
    6. Corporate and financial reporting
    7. Business and governance
    8. Ethics
    9. Insolvency
    10. ICAS Research
    11. Pensions
    12. Practice
    13. Public sector
    14. Sustainability
    15. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Tax-free childcare proves more taxing than first thought

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
By Justine Riccomini

1 March 2022

Key points

  • A recent case highlighting the interaction between employment taxes and welfare payments was decided.
  • The case decision clarified the way in which tax-free childcare payments should be calculated.
  • The judge found in favour of the taxpayers who were deemed to be eligible for the payments.

Justine Riccomini 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 interesting insight into some of the anomalies which can appear when employers need to dovetail welfare benefits with payroll. Both tax-free childcare and the scheme available from the Department of Education to offer 30 hours of free childcare are administered by HMRC under a joint online application process.  Even though the legislation underpinning the two schemes is different, the decision-making process for deciding eligibility is the same.

In HMRC v JS and Others [2021] UKUT 264 (AAC), 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 is not compelled to set aside First-Tier Tribunal 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 would be futile.”

The claims had been rejected by HMRC in all three cases but were upheld at the First-tier Tribunal.

What was the court asked 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 which is taken into account when considering the timescale which is 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 or Living Wage. If the individual has a partner, they should have the same expectation.

Doing the maths – assessing the income

The way in which the eligibility was calculated was instrumental in deciding the outcomes. HMRC had taken a strict monthly received cash value as the reason for deeming claimants to be ineligible for the benefit, whereas if the value of pay earned was spread across the period in which the claimant had worked, the result was different. The Tribunal took the view that the purpose of the legislation was not to trip people up, but to give people assistance and the claimants were being denied something which it was technically their right to claim.


The First Tier Tribunal had not undertaken the same calculations as the Upper Tribunal for the claimants and looked at 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 individual over the year, it was still able to conclude that an entitlement existed as the payments exceeded the threshold on a quarterly basis.

HMRC had argued that 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 that the person has actually earned during that period. The claimants argued that the periodic earned income approach gives a more equitable result because it offers entitlement to free childcare during the periods each year when the person needs the childcare the most – i.e. when they are working – which was surely the purpose of the regulations.

In his commentary the judge stated that: ”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 that the First Tier Tribunal judge had erred in her classification of one of the claimants as self-employed when in fact she should have been classified as an employee – which meant that the criteria for assessment of eligibility were slightly different.

He went on to clarify: “Even if DL had been self-employed in that work, however, the judge’s approach was wrong because the regulations limit the way in which self-employed income is calculated where it is to be amalgamated with the expected income from employed earnings. A wholly self-employed person’s expected income can be calculated under regulation 5 (1) (b) (i) with its reference to the relevant threshold within the declaration period as for an employed person; alternatively, it may be calculated under 5 (1) (b) (ii): (ii) “The person’s expected income from the work in the period specified in paragraph (5) is greater than or equal to four times the relevant threshold.”

The judge referred to the case of Johnson and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Johnson [2020] EWCA Civ 788 which he considered bolstered his own arguments for the way in which eligibility should be calculated because it, “considered the rationality of regulations under the Universal Credit scheme in the context of difficulties arising out of double payments from employers in some months due to the movement of pay days due to public holidays.” This caused difficulties in the calculation of otherwise regular benefit payments of universal credit to affected employees. The point was made that, "it is…no part of the policy underlying universal credit to encourage claimants to base their employment choices on the salary payment date offered by a prospective employer. Yet that is what is happening for these Respondents."

Prospective decision – were the claims time-barred?

When considering the period for which the claimant’s declaration has effect, Regulation 15 of the Childcare (etc.) Regulations 2016 provides that where a tribunal decides a case under regulation 24, the date of that tribunal decision counts as being the first day of the first period in which the declaration has effect – in other words, it is treated as if the claim has just been made on the date of the decision. The judge concluded that in accordance with Evans LJ in Chief Adjudication Officer v Woods reported as R(DLA) 5/98, “exceptionally, decisions may be made that are prospective in effect” and that the claims could therefore stand and the claimants’ entitlement to the funds would remain valid as if the expiration date had not yet passed or become time-barred.

Summary

There is an intricate mix of welfare and employment taxes legislation in this case which highlights the need for different government departments to align their policy and legislation to avoid anomalies arising.

Director’s salary ambiguity leads to £250K bill

By Philip McNeill, Head of Taxation (Tax Practice and Owner Managed Business Taxes)

1 November 2021

Hybrid working: The way ahead

By Justine Riccomini and Dawn Dickson

21 September 2021

2-23-marsh 2-23-marsh
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: