"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

if a family have a legitmate claim ... they WONT pay anything back!!

"Tim" wrote
... which is why what I said was correct - look at it again.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not at all - you refered to repaying tax credit as "money
that you shouldn't have received in the first place" ...

You need to consider the context. We were talking about the situation where
a tax code was altered assuming the person was a basic rate taxpayer, but
they were actually a high rate taxpayer. This meant that the tax code was
amended inappropriately, giving **too much** tax relief. In that case, it
is true that the person "shouldn't have received [it] in the first place".

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first
place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

if a family have a legitmate claim ... they WONT pay anything back!!

"Tim" wrote
... which is why what I said was correct - look at it again.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not at all - you refered to repaying tax credit as "money
that you shouldn't have received in the first place" ...

You need to consider the context. We were talking about the situation
where
a tax code was altered assuming the person was a basic rate taxpayer, but
they were actually a high rate taxpayer. This meant that the tax code was
amended inappropriately, giving **too much** tax relief. In that case, it
is true that the person "shouldn't have received [it] in the first place".


the point i'm stressing is the "money that you shouldn't have received in
the first place" (with regard to tax credits - not income tax)

whether you "should've" or "shouldn't have" is determnined by where abouts
in the tax year you claim - that's just plain wrong - ergo, whether you
"should" or "should not" pay it back - is also determined by where abouts in
the tax year you make a claim

hence - no one can say catagorically whether you "should've" had it or
"shouldn't have" had it - and that's why it's a sham

In message of Mon, 20 Sep 2004, JethroUK© writes

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first
place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

if a family have a legitmate claim ... they WONT pay anything back!!

"Tim" wrote
... which is why what I said was correct - look at it again.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not at all - you refered to repaying tax credit as "money
that you shouldn't have received in the first place" ...

You need to consider the context. We were talking about the situation
where
a tax code was altered assuming the person was a basic rate taxpayer, but
they were actually a high rate taxpayer. This meant that the tax code was
amended inappropriately, giving **too much** tax relief. In that case, it
is true that the person "shouldn't have received [it] in the first place".


the point i'm stressing is the "money that you shouldn't have received in
the first place" (with regard to tax credits - not income tax)


But that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about
Children's Tax Credit which is a different matter to Child Tax Credit or
Working Tax Credit.

"chris" wrote in message
...
Also, does anyone have experince of how sympathetic the IR are i.e.
rescinding late payment fines/interest given that I returned the self
assessment form within 9 days of receiving it ?


Personal experience only:
Very forgiving, if you look at the IR website there is a bit about valid
excuses for not filling in self assessment form. One of those is not
receiving the form.

--
Work | remove magic word .org to reply
Home | I own the domain but theres no MX

"JethroUK©" wrote
the point i'm stressing ..

Haven't you stressed it enough already? :-(

"JethroUK©" wrote
whether you "should've" or "shouldn't have" is
determnined by where abouts in the tax year you claim - ...

Yes, that's the rules.

"JethroUK©" wrote
... that's just plain wrong ...

Well, you might not agree with it but "that be the rules, mate!"

Would you like to change any of the rest of the rules as well - perhaps
increase ( / decrease!) the amount, say, tenfold??!!

"JethroUK©" wrote
hence - no one can say catagorically whether you "should've"
had it or "shouldn't have" had it - and that's why it's a sham

Yes people can - simply apply the rules (which you seem to know how to do!)
and you *will* know, categorically.

"Tim" wrote in message ...

"JethroUK©" wrote
... that's just plain wrong ...

Well, you might not agree with it but "that be the rules, mate!"


but they are unwritten rules (only way to find out these "rules", is when
you are affected)

Would you like to change any of the rest of the rules as well - perhaps
increase ( / decrease!) the amount, say, tenfold??!!


you would prolly be interested in changing rules if they directly affected
you

say income tax paid by the month you born in

Jan pay nothing
Feb pay 10%
Mar pay 20%
Apr pay 30%
-
Nov & Dec pay 100%

because that's about the size of it

"Tim" wrote
Well, you might not agree with it but "that be the rules, mate!"

"JethroUK©" wrote
but they are unwritten rules (only way to find
out these "rules", is when you are affected)

Really? Are you sure about that??


"JethroUK©" wrote
you would prolly be interested in changing
rules if they directly affected you

say income tax paid by the month you born in

Jan pay nothing
Feb pay 10%
Mar pay 20%
Apr pay 30%
-
Nov & Dec pay 100%

because that's about the size of it

Now you're just being silly.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Well, you might not agree with it but "that be the rules, mate!"

"JethroUK©" wrote
but they are unwritten rules (only way to find
out these "rules", is when you are affected)

Really? Are you sure about that??


absolutely positive - have you ever seen any mention in the adverts - nope
! - you will see lots of posts here from people that dont realise that Tax
Credits may have to paid back (unlike any other form of benefit)


"JethroUK©" wrote
you would prolly be interested in changing
rules if they directly affected you

say income tax paid by the month you born in

Jan pay nothing
Feb pay 10%
Mar pay 20%
Apr pay 30%
-
Nov & Dec pay 100%

because that's about the size of it

Now you're just being silly.


No sillier than the current Tax Credit system that pays anything from 100%
to 0% dependant [solely] on where abouts in the tax year you claim (might as
well be the month of your birth)

"Tim" wrote in message ...
The old CTC was not an "income", it was a reduction
in tax. It was no more an income than a tax allowance is.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Forget what they're called and see them
for what they a lumps of money from two different sources.

The difference between an income and a reduction in tax is obviously too subtle
for you. Here's a clue - if you paid no tax, you didn't get the CTC because
there was no tax to reduce.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
PAYE could easily have been enhanced to
cope with the CTC had it remained. Simply by ...
SNIP irrelevant process description
Then it would have deducted the correct
amount of tax for someone with no other income.

Similarly, the PAYE system could be enhanced to cope with the situation of
two employers. But it hasn't been. So what?

Yeah, how exactly? Please explain. I've explained exactly how it could have been
enhanced to cope with the CTC, you explain how it could be enhanced to cope with
two employers.

Er, do you know what MIRAS stood for?
The clue is in the last two letters, "AS". Anyone getting
MIRAS after the rate was restricted wouldn't have had it affect
their tax code at all, as it was all done at source. It fact they
wouldn't even have needed to mention it on their tax return.

Again, the above is simply not true (not for everyone at least). The tax
code was changed if you had a beneficial (low-rate) mortgage from your
employer.

Yeah, well done, you've found an odd situation where what I wrote didn't apply.
But anyway MIRAS was abolished before the CTC was introduced so in the time
period we were discussing it was irrelevant. I'm sure if you go back to the
1950's you'll probably find other exceptions...

--
Andy

"JethroUK©" wrote
but they are unwritten rules (only way to find
out these "rules", is when you are affected)

"Tim" wrote
Really? Are you sure about that??


"JethroUK©" wrote
absolutely positive - have you ever
seen any mention in the adverts - nope !

I wouldn't expect to see that kind of detail on the adverts. Did you?

Did you look on the IR website? Did you read any literature/leaflets
produced by IR??

"JethroUK©" wrote
- you will see lots of posts here from people that dont realise that
Tax Credits may have to paid back (unlike any other form of benefit)

There are many things that many people don't realise - that doesn't mean
that you cannot find out those things if you look in the right places.


"JethroUK©" wrote
say income tax paid by the month you born in
Jan pay nothing
Feb pay 10%
Mar pay 20%
Nov & Dec pay 100%
because that's about the size of it

"Tim" wrote
Now you're just being silly.

"JethroUK©" wrote
No sillier than the current Tax Credit system that pays anything
from 100% to 0% dependant [solely] on where abouts in the
tax year you claim (might as well be the month of your birth)

No, they depend on your earnings during the tax year. Just like, for
instance, tax allowances do. If I don't make a capital gain one year, can I
use double the allowance next year? Nope!