Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(TC)1/04
File Number:	CTC 1106 2002
Appellant:	Taylor v. Commissioners of the Inland Revenue
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mr J. M. Henty
Date Of Decision:	20/02/2004
Date Added:	28/07/2004
Main Category:	Earnings and other income
Main Subcategory:	Calculation: employed
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Disabled person's tax credit - remunerative work - whether bank holidays to be disregarded in calculating average hours worked The claimant's contract of employment required him to work 16 hours per week. His claim for disabled person's tax credit made on 8.6.01 was refused on the ground that he could not be treated as engaged in remunerative work. This was because under regulation 6(4)(c)(ii) of the Disability Working Allowance (General) Regulations 1991, the average number of hours worked over the 5 and 13 weeks immediately preceding the week of claim was less than 16 hours per week and so for the purposes of regulation 6(1)(a) of those regulations, he was not undertaking work for not less than 16 hours per week. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's appeal. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner on the ground that but for the bank holidays that had occurred in the 5 week period immediately preceding the week of claim, he would have satisfied regulation 6(4)(c)(ii). He also argued that it was perverse that whilst absence from work by reason of bank holidays was not disregarded for the purpose of regulation 6(1)(a), under regulation 6(5)(c) such absence was disregarded in determining whether the claimant had worked not less than 16 hours in the week of claim or either of the two weeks immediately preceding the week of claim, for the purpose of the further condition in regulation 6(1)(c) for being treated as engaged in remunerative work. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, holding that the focus of regulation 6(1)(a) was on the hours actually worked rather than on the contracted hours of work and applying regulation 6(4)(c)(ii) on that basis. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. He argued that as regulation 6(4)(c)(ii) permitted the use of an alternative length of time to enable the average hours of work to be determined more accurately, the Revenue ought to have adopted instead a period of three weeks in May 2001 when the claimant actually did average 16 hours work per week. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. selecting the suggested three week period in May would distort the weekly average hours rather than enable the average to be determined more accurately and the Revenue could not be said to have reached a perverse decision (paragraph 12); 2. the requirement of section 129(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 that a claimant is "engaged and normally engaged in remunerative work" was not to be taken as looking to both the factual and contractual positions nor was regulation 6(1)(a) to be taken as looking at the contractual position whilst regulation 6(1)(c) and 6(5) looked at the factual position. Regulation 6(1)(a) focuses on the hours actually worked. CTC/3593/2001 was approved (paragraph 13); 3. regulations 6(1)(c ) and 6(5) were necessary to ensure that the current position at the date of claim was that the claimant had actually worked 16 hours in the week of claim or just before as well as having worked an average of 16 hours across previous weeks (paragraph 13).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(TC) 1_04 bv.doc