Child benefit - so you have got a letter

Child benefit letter The child benefit letters have now been sent out by HMRC to about one million people

Related Stories

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is sending letters to about a million people that start with the question: "Are you affected by changes to child benefit?"

The letters are brief, though they do come with a help sheet, and will no doubt raise a lot of questions in recipients' minds.

What follows will, hopefully, answer most of those questions.

What is it all about?

The government has decided to withdraw child benefit (CB) from high-income households.

However, rather than actually cancel the payments, it is imposing a tax charge to claw back some or all of the benefit received.

This new High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) starts from 7 January 2013.

An HMRC tool can help most combinations of households decide if they are caught by the new charge.

Income above £50,000 means paying a charge of 1% of the CB for every £100 of income above that £50,000 base level.

So if your income is £57,000 your tax charge equals 70% of the CB received.

Those with income of £60,000 or more will face a tax charge equal to the whole of their household's CB.

I have got a letter - what do I have to do?

First, in the immortal words of Corporal Jones, "don't panic".

The letter is not a tax demand, nor does it require an immediate response.

But those who get one of the letters (and, indeed, some who do not) need to think about their situation and may need to take action before 7 January 2013.

Do bear in mind that the worst that can happen is that the tax bill claws back all of your CB. It can never exceed the CB received.

Who is getting a letter?

HMRC is sending letters to people it thinks:

  • have income over £50,000 (or have a partner who does); and
  • receive child benefit (or have a partner who does)

If this really is not your situation - you do not get CB, or you and your partner each have income below £50,000, then you can ignore the letter.

There is one small group of people who may not be caught by the HMRC's mail-shot but could be liable for tax.

Suppose you are a parent, a single mother for instance, and you give some of your child benefit to the child's grandparents because they look after your child while you go out to work?

If one of the grandparents happens to earn more than £50,000 a year, then the fact that they are receiving some of your child benefit will trigger a tax bill for them.

Map of UK showing number of letters detailing changes sent to high income households by constituency. Figures are to end November 2012 and are provided by the Treasury. Some estimates suggest that letters have been sent to two thirds of affected households.

What counts as income?

Income here is "adjusted net income" - all taxable income for the tax year in question. The "net" is because pension contributions and payments to charities can be deducted.

Income includes salary, taxable benefits-in-kind such as a company car, net-rental income, and gross-interest income.

There is a calculator on the new website to help you.

Child benefit facts

  • Child benefit is a tax-free payment that is aimed at helping parents cope with the cost of bringing up children
  • One parent can claim £20.30 a week for an eldest or only child and £13.40 a week for each of their other children
  • The payments apply to all children aged under 16 and in some cases until they are 20 years old
  • The system is administered by HM Revenue and Customs, which pays out to nearly 7.9 million families, with 13.7 million children

Who counts as a partner?

This includes a husband, wife or civil partner unless you are separated in a way that is expected to be permanent.

However, the term also includes someone with whom you are living as if they are your husband, wife or civil partner - which, inevitably, is going to cause some uncertainties.

The point is that the HICBC attaches to the higher earner of the couple.

So for many married couples caught by the HICBC, that will mean the wife receiving CB, but the husband receiving a tax bill to claw back some or all of the CB.

It will undoubtedly be the case that, for some people, their positions will change during a year.

The amount of the HICBC is calculated by reference to the period the couple were together.

I think I am liable - what are my choices?

As HMRC's letter says, you can choose whether to:

  • stop receiving CB and avoid the charge, or
  • keep getting CB and declare the payments for income tax purposes

This is really something that partners need to decide jointly.

Those who believe they are definitely going to lose all their CB may decide to stop getting the CB in the first place.

The person receiving CB needs to fill in the online form at or call the CB helpline on 0845 302 1444.

Those who are not sure what their income will be, or who think their income will be in the £50-60,000 bracket, or of course those whose income is below the threshold, will probably decide to keep receiving CB.

It makes sense to monitor the position during the year and consider putting a bit of money aside if there is going to be a charge.

Baby being fed Child benefit amounts to £20.30 a week for an eldest or only child

Do I have to tell HMRC I might be liable for HICBC?

Yes. If you do not normally fill in a self-assessment tax return, you will need to tell HMRC by completing form SA1 - see - by 6 October after the end of the tax year.

How do I pay HICBC?

In principle HICBC will be due for payment at the same time as self-assessment liabilities.

So, the first charges, for CB for the three months 7 January - 5 April 2013, will be due for payment by 31 January 2014.

If you do not want to pay the HICBC in a lump sum, you can choose to pay the charge through PAYE codes.

So the underpayment for 2012-13, and your ongoing in-year liability, could be collected through your tax code in 2014-15.

What if I make the wrong choice?

There is no penalty for keeping receiving CB if you (or your partner) have a high income.

You just need to tell HMRC so they can levy the HICBC. And you can stop the CB payments at any time.

More importantly, some people will stop the payments and then find their income does not reach the £60,000 level after all, or they split up with a partner who had the high income.

In this case they can reinstate the CB payments.

Such reinstatement can be made retrospective for up to two years.

Bear in mind that if your income was the lower one but still over £50,000, you will have to pay a tax charge too.

My partner and I do not talk about finances. How do I find out our position?

How it might work

  • Janet, a single mother, has one child and accordingly has CB of £1,040 for the tax year.
  • Her income is £52,000.
  • Half way through the year she moves in with John, who has income of £65,000.
  • For half the year, Janet is liable to HICBC.
  • With income £2,000 (20%) above the base level, she faces a tax charge of 20% of the CB for the six months she is on her own: £104.
  • For the second half of the year, John is liable to the HICBC and he will face a full claw-back charge of £520.

It will be possible to get some information from HMRC.

It will be able to say if your partner gets CB; also, based on the information it holds, whether your partner's income is higher than yours.

I did not get a letter - am I still potentially liable for HICBC?

Yes. The same principles apply as set out above.

HMRC cannot guarantee to contact all affected people, particularly where relationships are changing.

It has a lot of useful information at

It also offers a helpline on 0845 302 1444.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Links to external sites are for information only and do not constitute endorsement. Always obtain independent professional advice for your own particular situation.


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 112.

    C2DE: I am 24 years into my career in engineering, I am degree qualified and am continuously working 50hour weeks in my mid 40's, I worked this hard so my wife could stay at home to bring up our children. I feel priveleged that I can earn a good wage, but not lucky. On minimum wage you should be able to earn about 12.5K full time, it's not great but would be a significant uplift, good luck.

  • rate this

    Comment number 111.

    "I'd suggest £50k doesn't go that far - depending on where you live e.g. London"

    It's all relative. £50k can go quite far, even in London, but it is probable that the family on £50k is going to be paying more rent and will have more outgoings than a family on a lower income.

    I'm in favour of making CB a means tested benefit, but it's unfair to suggest those on £50k won't 'feel the pinch'.

  • rate this

    Comment number 110.

    Interestingly, Osborne claims that about 85% of people support this change, about the same percentage of people that are not effected by it. It's an attack on a stay-at-home Mum or Dad family unit for all but the really highest of earners, ooooh who Osborne has just give a tax cut too. I will NEVER vote Tory again.

  • rate this

    Comment number 109.

    Lucky to earn 50k + YES as lucky as the 98k ers NO !
    I earn less than 8.4k a year brought up to around 12k with benefits. If I went to work full time where I am now I could earn up to 10.5K a year but would pay out £30+ a day child care so would probably lose money going full time !

  • rate this

    Comment number 108.

    C2DE: A couple on £98K can claim full benefit, a single earner on £60000 loses all, work out relative household incomes and come back if you think the 50K earner is still "lucky". It''s half baked, if it were properly means tested I would not like it, but I could accept it, in it's current form it s cheap shot that they hope won't loose too many votes.

  • rate this

    Comment number 107.

    My salary is £65k so I know we will not get the allowance and I accept that. I don't accept a couple whos join income is above £65k, but individual less the £50k still receive it. Their net income is higher then mine to start with when you take into account income tax, NI etc. That is unfair.

  • rate this

    Comment number 106.

    103.C2DE, nobody said i can't afford to lose it, though it may be true for some, i just don't agree with the random figure chosen, the idiotic rational, nor the fact i am currently several thousand pounds a year worse off thanks to the labour governments complete mismanagement of the economy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 105.

    But if I was earning 50k a year I would probably be able to spell Goose correctly..

  • rate this

    Comment number 104.

    I agree, how much will this cost to administer, its ridiculous. I am all for a welfare state, one that helps people, not one that makes working a joke, as you can be better off by not working. Man-o-Brick, need to check your facts, everytime the 50% rate is applied, tax revenues go down and vice-versa, incentivise working and creating wealth

  • rate this

    Comment number 103.

    I do not understand any of this.
    There is lots of talk about the unemployed and low wage earners having children they can not afford but take child benefit off people who earn £50,000+ a year and they say "We can not afford it" ! Well what is good for the gouse is good for the gander !
    If I was lucky enough to earn 50k+ I hope I would have the good grace to say I do not need Child Benefit !

  • rate this

    Comment number 102.

    This is a ridiculous waste of money.
    Higher rate earners pay huge amounts in tax, better to consider child benefit as a tiny refund of tax paid and be done with it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 101.

    This country (as any) needs some of us to raise children, and CB is (was) a way to recognise those people who are happy to do so. It is plainly wrong to cut CB, no matter how much those who receive it earn. If the government wants more ££, simply raise the higher tax rate by a bit, or low the threshold for paying it. But ... in the first place, don't cut the 50% tax rate for the super-rich!

  • rate this

    Comment number 100.

    Hang on - it used to be a tax allowance for dependents (except they didn't trust dad not to spend it done the pub so they gave it to Mum - CB). Everyone to live which costs - so EVERYONE including children should be entitled to a basic tax free allowance. All these dependent tax allowances should be deductible from the total family income regardless of the number of earners - that would be fair!

  • rate this

    Comment number 99.

    I don't disagree that higher earners should no longer get CB, but not in this unfair manner. And, if we're supposed to be all in it together, why are people with children being targeted disproportionately? The best way of ensuring everyone contributes is a small tax-rise for all. Anything else is unfair.

  • rate this

    Comment number 98.

    JPublic, I think you're wrong. Until the 1970s child benefit or family allowance was only payable for the second child and any subsequent children. It was only in the mid-70s that first time mothers became eligible to claim.

  • rate this

    Comment number 97.

    As outlined the changes seem fair, but CB should not be payable on children 3 to infinity in any event.

    Some of the contributors below seem to be on eye watering salaries and still protest!

  • rate this

    Comment number 96.

    My grievance is the inequality of the changes. No 'affluent' families should get CB. As a 1-earner house where my partner earns just over £60k, we are affluent. We'll no longer get any CB. This is annoying but fair. It's not fair that 2 earner homes earning up to £50k each (up to £100k in total) will still receive full CB. Taxpayers shouldn't fund these 'affluent' families. It's plain wrong.

  • rate this

    Comment number 95.

    I haven't got any kids and I don't benefit from this at all-if you can't afford them , don't have them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 94.

    Surely if this tax is going be "fair" then it should be based on the total income of the household and not just on the highest single earner? If both parents earn £49,999 then they have a house hold income of £99,998 but as neither earn over the £50,000 threshold they do not have to pay the tax. Whereas, a couple with a single income of £60,000 will lose the benefit completely.How is this fair

  • rate this

    Comment number 93.

    89, J Public, thanks for the patronising comment, we do not live beyond our means, thanks for asking. We have a household income of £150k, but that isn't the point, we have no debts, just pointing out the arbitary figure of £50k is wrong. Depends hugely on where you live, as to how much your mortgage has to be.


Page 1 of 6


More Business stories



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.