His Majesty's Revenue and Customs and MC v SC (CHB): [2026] UKUT 30 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Citron on 21 January 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This case concerned priority for child benefit where two persons (in this case, the separated parents of the child concerned) were potentially entitled to the benefit. The relevant provision was paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which provides that, in such circumstances, the two potentially entitled parties (the parents) may jointly elect for one of them to be entitled or, in default of such election, HMRC had a discretion to decide. The First-tier Tribunal had decided that a valid joint election was in place (in favour of the Respondent, the mother) based on its finding that the parents had agreed this, and the agreement was reflected in a letter from the Second Appellant (the father)’s solicitors and in a consent order of the Family Court. The Upper Tribunal holds that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law: a joint election of this kind must be in writing (or by telephone) and must be notified to HMRC; “agreement” alone is insufficient, and in this case the documents in question, even if they had been given to HMRC, did not amount to a joint election for the mother to receive child benefit in respect of the child. The Upper Tribunal also follows a previous decision of the Upper Tribunal in holding that an exercise of discretion by HMRC under paragraph 5 of Schedule 10, to award child benefit to a different person, is itself a change of circumstances justifying supersession of a previous award of child benefit. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside and re-made in the form of an award of child benefit in respect of the child concerned to the person whom HMRC, on exercising their discretion under paragraph 5 in default of a joint election, had awarded it to (the father).