JG v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HRP)

Entitlement to tax credits depends on both presence and ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. A person may be treated as present during an absence only for the period permitted by the Tax Credits (Residence) Regulations 2003. The regulations make no allowance for travel difficulties caused by the pandemic. Questions about inaccurate official information or advice may give rise to separate remedies, but they fall outside the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. EU rights preserved by the Withdrawal Agreement did not assist a United Kingdom citizen who neither resided nor worked in a member state at the relevant date.

JG appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision concerning his entitlement to child tax credit and working tax credit for the 2021/2022 tax year. His partner and children had moved permanently to Slovenia, while JG remained ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. JG travelled to Slovenia from 1 June 2021 until 17 December 2021. The Commissioners treated his entitlement as ending on 24 August 2021, after 12 weeks’ absence.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Before the Upper Tribunal, JG relied on EU law, pandemic-related travel disruption, information on the Government website and advice from a helpline. The central questions were whether the absence rules preserved his entitlement, whether the Withdrawal Agreement applied, and whether the tribunals had jurisdiction to consider the information and advice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an error of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. Under section 3 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 and regulation 3(1) of the Tax Credits (Residence) Regulations 2003, entitlement requires both presence and ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. JG remained ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
3. Regulation 4 permits a person to be treated as present during an absence. The permitted period depends on the circumstances, subject to the maximum in regulation 4(2). In JG’s circumstances the permitted period was eight weeks. The Commissioners had applied a more generous 12-week period, so the award could not be reduced further on that account.
4. The Withdrawal Agreement did not preserve EU-law rights for JG in the 2021/2022 tax year. The transitional period had ended before his journey. The relevant provisions concerning United Kingdom citizens residing, working or self-employed in a member state on 30 December 2020 did not apply to him.
5. Regulation 4 contains no allowance for pandemic-related travel difficulties. The Upper Tribunal applied the approach in GL v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKUT 100 (AAC). Any discretionary allowance was a matter for the Commissioners, not the tribunals.
6. Complaints about inaccurate website information or helpline advice were outside the tribunals’ jurisdiction. Any possible compensation claim was a matter for the Commissioners or another forum.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal dismissed; the First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 31 October 2023 involved no error of law.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): dismissed JG’s appeal concerning the 2021/2022 tax year.