WTC and CTC as NRP Income.?

krashovrload

++

Reading in a DWP document that all maintenance payments are disregarded (along with any partner income) and will be paid in full in addition benefits and then I read in the next paragraph...

Both working and child tax credits are treated as a non-resident parent’s income as they are paid as a supplement to earnings. In circumstances where the non-resident parent and their partner are working, half of the working tax credits received will be included within the non-resident parent’s net weekly income in order to calculate his or her liability. If the non-resident parent’s partner receives the household primary income, no tax credits will be included as part of the income figure for the purposes of the maintenance calculation. Child tax credits paid to either the non-resident parent or their partner is taken into account in full.

Why should money that comes into the household of the NRP to help towards the upkeep of any children in the household be counted as income and then in theory paid (albeit a tiny %) towards the upkeep of another child.? Especially when the PWC could well be getting WTC and/or CTC for the child already.??

How does it work work if there's a chain? I have to pay maintenance for my child (which I don't object to) and live with my partner who has a child from a previous relationship (who has informal arrangement with the NRP). Is our WTC and/or CTC counted and then ignored?

Just curious (it's a slow day)

++

kevin137

Well the simple reasoning is that you get a reduction because of the children in your household even if they are not yours.

In an informal agreement then there is nothing set in stone, it is what you agree between yourself, but if the CSA worked it out, then assuming 1 child to pay for and 1 child in the house, then instead of 15% of 100% of your income, then it would be assessed at 15% of 85% of this income, even though the child is not yours...

So while it appears that they are taking money away meant for the children in your household, it is not necessarily the case...

krashovrload

kevin137 wrote: »

So while it appears that they are taking money away meant for the children in your household, it is not necessarily the case...

++

Although it might be.!

I'm never 100% sure that they know what they are doing on the other end of the phone - esp. when my case keeps getting moved around the country to new centres and the phone number shown at the top of the page is never the one that you actually have to ring.!

++