They have also agreed further backdate to the date asylum first claimed pending more information so that they can correctly establish any remaining entitlement after deductions.
We now have the task of establishing income during the last 8 YEARS since he first claimed asylum.
If the legal opinions are that TCO can deduct lump sum from lump sum then, becuase an award of tax credit is given at every renewal period then, and especially as this is recognised in para 3(6)(b) TC(I)R, it could be argued that offsetting could only take place on an annual basis. Yes does make sense - thanks for that - it does seem that the regs must be assuming that it is an annual award not the whole five years lumped together simply because as you say tax credits are based on an annual cycle Hi Jacky Please let us know how you get on with any appeals on this subject.
So in the case of your working client, that year (or years) where he worked and has already repaid his NASS, he might still get arrears of TC for that period… For new client’s, and until the position is clarified in thier favour, then your idea of delaying a claim might be the better otion. There is some speculation on caselaw and interaction with the refugee convention available via the following links, if it is any use to you: credits for people from abroad notes Sept 09) Mark Thanks for the links - I will let you know how we get on at appeal - we have only recently managed to overturn a TCO decision at Upper Tribunal level which would only award backdated tax credits to the date of the same client’s fresh asylum claim in 2005 rather than her first asylum claim in 2000 - (her appeal in was subsequenlty dismissed in 2003 and she was finally granted refugee status in 2007 following the fresh claim) - our arguments which were finally supported by the Inland Revenue revolved around the concept of refugee status being a retrospective award and the fact that the fresh claim basically is a resubmission of the original grounds for asylum with additional evidence.
However in one year my client worked and therefore did not receive any NASS support and in fact had to pay back to NASS any of her wages that were more than what she would have recieved from NASS.
My argument is that in this year she should be paid CTC and WTC based on her earnings (which after the deductions paid back to NASS would be less than IS/JSA) with nothing offset since she did not recive NASS support in this year - therefore in this year only she would be entitled to the full tax credit entitlement.
My client expereinced problems with his TC claim which meant that from the first date of claim which was within the 3 months of ILR being awarded, the date that was treated as the first active TC claim was a year later.
Tax Credit (claims and notifications) Regs , reg 7 which would then give her backdated benefit for the period 21/11/08 - 8/2/09 I suspect not but cannot find the relevant legislation - it seems to me that the Tax Credits (Immigarion) regs apply to persons subject to immigration control and someone in the claimant’s position who has been granted refugee status is no longer subject to immigration control - if she cannot benefit from the normal backdating rules because she was, prior to gaining refugee status, subject to immigration control then at what point will she be treated an applicant who can simply get three months backdating para 7 of reg 3 case 5 of the TC (I) regs operates to prevent backdating under reg 7 of the TC(CN)regs.
If it’s the former, I would suggest the TCO have messed up your client’s claim, and if it’s the latter, then it may well be advantageous to delay a claim in the manner you suggest.
I should add that I’ve never dealt with a client in this situation and this is the first time I’ve looked at these regs, so I’m more than happy to be corrected.
As far as I know, if a client is only getting NASS support then I surely there would still be some arrears for the period of being an ‘asylum seeker’...?
I cannot see how the operation of this reg should lead to people being any better off by delaying a claim as it appears to be a simple offset measure.