Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Sam M
    • By Former MSE Sam M 2nd Jun 15, 4:39 PM
    • 238Posts
    • 159Thanks
    Former MSE Sam M
    Marriage Allowance
    • #1
    • 2nd Jun 15, 4:39 PM
    Marriage Allowance 2nd Jun 15 at 4:39 PM
    Hi!

    This is the discussion thread for the



    Click reply below to discuss. If you havenít already, join the forum to reply. If you arenít sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.


    Thanks folks ,
Page 62
    • polymaff
    • By polymaff 12th Apr 18, 11:44 AM
    • 2,334 Posts
    • 1,030 Thanks
    polymaff
    I assume this is intended to provide that tax relief on pension contributions are at basic rate only.
    Originally posted by Consumerist
    Yes - so simplifying HMRC's rebate to the pension provider.
    • Biffo51
    • By Biffo51 12th Apr 18, 12:37 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Biffo51
    Biffo51
    My Partner is not working - does she have a allowance to transfer ?
    • sheramber
    • By sheramber 12th Apr 18, 1:12 PM
    • 5,593 Posts
    • 4,245 Thanks
    sheramber
    My Partner is not working - does she have a allowance to transfer ?
    Originally posted by Biffo51

    Are you married or in Civil Partnership?
    • Dazed and confused
    • By Dazed and confused 12th Apr 18, 5:31 PM
    • 3,307 Posts
    • 1,672 Thanks
    Dazed and confused
    Biffo51

    My Partner is not working

    That really isn't relevant. It's her taxable income which is important. That might be zero but she could be getting £15,000 pension which would mean overall as a couple you wouldn't benefit.

    And sheramber's question is quite important!
    • Shedman
    • By Shedman 12th Apr 18, 7:59 PM
    • 230 Posts
    • 137 Thanks
    Shedman
    Just an attempt to get HMRC and all the media who slavishly follow HMRC's nonsense guidance to recognise that they are, for UK-based Income taxpayers, completely wrong. For this, overwhelming, majority the income criteria are that the taxpayer electing for MAT must not be a higher-rate taxpayer before or after the election, and that the spouse must not be a higher-rate taxpayer beforehand.

    There are cases where someone with £40k taxable would benefit from electing for MAT - and not just one or two cases but thousands. Maybe not the full £238, but a healthy sum.

    What HMRC cannot do is to admit they were wrong; what the media cannot do is to admit that they unthinkingly parrot utter nonsense.

    No change there, then.
    Originally posted by polymaff
    Interestingly the 2017-18 SA online calculation page seems to accept the donor can be a basic rate tax payer. Playing around with the wife's taxable income in her self assessment the other day and changing her from non tax payer making her a 'significan' basic rate taxpayer (just to ensure divs and interest allowances don't distort the test) it stills shows the MAT reduction from her personal allowance. Increase the income to become higher rate tax and the MAT reduction figure disappears.

    (Also I now see that they have included the MAT reduction in tax payable on the recipient SA calculation whereas last year it wasn't there)
    • polymaff
    • By polymaff 13th Apr 18, 10:04 AM
    • 2,334 Posts
    • 1,030 Thanks
    polymaff
    What HMRC cannot do is to admit they were wrong; what the media cannot do is to admit that they unthinkingly parrot utter nonsense.

    No change there, then.
    Originally posted by polymaff
    Interestingly the 2017-18 SA online calculation page seems to accept the donor can be a basic rate tax payer.
    Originally posted by Shedman
    And that is the paradox of HMRC. They know they are wrong and have reacted - but not in their advice or documentation. Leastways, that is not entirely true. Recently I saw an HMRC document which can be summarised as:

    You must be a non-taxpayer to elect for MAT - but you can elect if you are a taxpayer.

    Sheesh !
    • quietheart
    • By quietheart 13th Apr 18, 3:01 PM
    • 1,816 Posts
    • 1,923 Thanks
    quietheart
    So confused
    I applied recently. Today I've had a letter saying I owe HMRC £435.80, my husband had a letter saying they owe him £432.49.

    In 2016-2017 I earnt £12060, paid tax of £210.20,which seems ok if personal allowance is £11K
    HMRC say I've underpaid that year by £435.80.

    Does this mean there was no benefit to me applying?
    Last edited by quietheart; 13-04-2018 at 3:41 PM.
    • polymaff
    • By polymaff 13th Apr 18, 3:46 PM
    • 2,334 Posts
    • 1,030 Thanks
    polymaff
    I applied recently. Today I've had a letter saying I owe HMRC £435.80, my husband had a letter saying they owe him £432.49.

    In 2016-2017 I earnt £12060, paid tax of £210.20,which seems ok if personal allowance is £11K
    HMRC say I've underpaid that year by £435.80.

    Does anyone know why this might have happened?
    Originally posted by quietheart
    In the majority of cases where both spouses are taxpayers MAT ends up as being a simple transfer from the electing spouse to the other spouse. We'd need more info to explain why your (plural) two figures are not quite the same.

    **Correct
    Last edited by polymaff; 13-04-2018 at 4:03 PM. Reason: **Response to edit of quietheart's posting
    • Dustyalan
    • By Dustyalan 13th Apr 18, 6:15 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Dustyalan
    Marriage tax allowance
    My income from part time working and pensions puts me in 40% tax bracket, but by contributing into my personal pension this drops me back below 40% limit. Under those circumstances am I eligible for the M.T. A? My wifeís sole income is from the old age pension.
    • shilts
    • By shilts 13th Apr 18, 9:13 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    shilts
    My wife and I have just sorted out our marriage allowance backdated to 2015/16 . I have today received a tax calculation letter from HMRC confirming that I will be receiving a cheque to cover the years 2015/16 and 2016/17 . My question is as we have also applied for 2017/18 is this too early to get a tax calculation for this year , thanks ?
    • Dazed and confused
    • By Dazed and confused 13th Apr 18, 10:32 PM
    • 3,307 Posts
    • 1,672 Thanks
    Dazed and confused
    shilts

    When you say "we" applied I presume you really mean your wife applied?

    If so it seems you can expect the 2017:18 repayment between now and November.

    And you will possibly get the option of transferring the refund into your bank account instead of getting a cheque. Attached link has more info.

    https://www.gov.uk/tax-overpayments-and-underpayments
    • jimmo
    • By jimmo 13th Apr 18, 10:41 PM
    • 2,001 Posts
    • 2,424 Thanks
    jimmo
    shilts
    Yes it is. Whilst HMRC may well have your end of year details from your employer under Real Time Information there is still a grace period where employers can correct any mistakes. Pretty sure I read on here that is sometime in June. However, whilst your records will have been flagged for review, that could take months. In days gone by you could not claim until you had your P60 from your employer. Nowadays I would suggest getting your P60 would be the earliest time you should chase for a 2017/18 repayment.
    By the way, when your FIL phones HMRC tell him not to hold his breath. I know someone in similar circumstances who phoned last December and was told a specialist team would ring him back. Despite a couple of follow up calls the call back is still awaited.
    Last edited by jimmo; 13-04-2018 at 10:45 PM.
    • Dazed and confused
    • By Dazed and confused 13th Apr 18, 10:42 PM
    • 3,307 Posts
    • 1,672 Thanks
    Dazed and confused
    polymaff

    In the majority of cases where both spouses are taxpayers MAT ends up as being a simple transfer from the electing spouse to the other spouse. We'd need more info to explain why your (plural) two figures are not quite the same.

    It could be this,
    quietheart owes the standard £432 (total for 2015:16 and 2016:17) plus because HMRC have issued the calculations the small amounts most PAYE people owe due to how the tax tables work is now payable. £435.80 would look pretty accurate them


    quietheart's spouse is owed the standard £432 and the small difference to £432.49 could be him having the tax tables amount deducted/accounted for but then countered by the addition of some repayment interest?

    It seems the op should maybe have considered their own position for these years before applying for the back dates years.
    • Dazed and confused
    • By Dazed and confused 13th Apr 18, 10:46 PM
    • 3,307 Posts
    • 1,672 Thanks
    Dazed and confused
    Dustyalan

    If you don't pay higher rate tax (and don't have any dividend income) then you are able to benefit from Marriage Allowance if your wife applies for it.

    Looking at the experiences of other posters on here it would be seem prudent to review each tax year yourself first to make sure she doesn't apply for years when it isn't beneficial to do so - recent post from shilts on this thread being a prime example.
    • quietheart
    • By quietheart 14th Apr 18, 6:06 PM
    • 1,816 Posts
    • 1,923 Thanks
    quietheart
    polymaff

    In the majority of cases where both spouses are taxpayers MAT ends up as being a simple transfer from the electing spouse to the other spouse. We'd need more info to explain why your (plural) two figures are not quite the same.

    It could be this,
    quietheart owes the standard £432 (total for 2015:16 and 2016:17) plus because HMRC have issued the calculations the small amounts most PAYE people owe due to how the tax tables work is now payable. £435.80 would look pretty accurate them


    quietheart's spouse is owed the standard £432 and the small difference to £432.49 could be him having the tax tables amount deducted/accounted for but then countered by the addition of some repayment interest?

    It seems the op should maybe have considered their own position for these years before applying for the back dates years.
    Originally posted by Dazed and confused
    Thanks dazedandconfused. I didn't have a bloody clue to be honest. Do you think I'm ok just to leave it as it is as it doesn't appear to make much difference?
    • polymaff
    • By polymaff 14th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • 2,334 Posts
    • 1,030 Thanks
    polymaff
    Do you think I'm ok just to leave it as it is as it doesn't appear to make much difference?
    Originally posted by quietheart
    Very few will lose by leaving MAT in place. The classic loser case is where both spouses have a taxable income within 10% of that year's Personal Allowance. If that's not you, the risk of leaving MAT in place is minimal.
    • Dazed and confused
    • By Dazed and confused 14th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • 3,307 Posts
    • 1,672 Thanks
    Dazed and confused
    Thanks dazedandconfused. I didn't have a bloody clue to be honest. Do you think I'm ok just to leave it as it is as it doesn't appear to make much difference?

    For those amounts it probably would be less confusing for you if you just left it as it is. That of course is assuming your husband is going to use some of his refund to help you pay the tax you now owe!
    • quietheart
    • By quietheart 14th Apr 18, 7:48 PM
    • 1,816 Posts
    • 1,923 Thanks
    quietheart
    Thanks dazedandconfused. I didn't have a bloody clue to be honest. Do you think I'm ok just to leave it as it is as it doesn't appear to make much difference?

    For those amounts it probably would be less confusing for you if you just left it as it is. That of course is assuming your husband is going to use some of his refund to help you pay the tax you now owe!
    Originally posted by Dazed and confused
    Too flipping right he is. Thanks for all your help on this thread!
    • johncr
    • By johncr 8th Jun 18, 7:05 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    johncr
    Have just received a new tax code, with the Marriage Allowance reduced from £1190 to £1134. Naturally no explanation given, but could it be that in Scotland, £1134 saves me £238.14 at the 21% tax rate, and £1190 at 20% in the rest of the UK saves you £238 ? Have looked around on the net but can't see anything on the subject.
    • jimmo
    • By jimmo 8th Jun 18, 10:23 PM
    • 2,001 Posts
    • 2,424 Thanks
    jimmo
    I think you are right. Not living in Scotland myself I haven't taken too much notice of the Scottish tax changes but this article at least implies that the target is the amount of tax rather than the amount of the "allowance".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42668299
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

648Posts Today

5,644Users online

Martin's Twitter