I understand that married couples allowance is not possible if not
living together at any time in the tax year.

I have a client who is 91 and he had to go in a nursing home due to
ill health although he is still married.

HMRC have confirmed that as he went into a nursing home even due to
ill health in 2008-2009 no MCA is possible in 2009-2010. I'm sure this
isn't how the legislation was intended. I'm seeing my MP on Friday
about this matter.

"PeterSaxton"  wrote in message 
news:93602009-f458-42cc-ab33-cc29beb0d3be@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>I understand that married couples allowance is not possible if not
> living together at any time in the tax year.
>
> I have a client who is 91 and he had to go in a nursing home due to
> ill health although he is still married.
>
> HMRC have confirmed that as he went into a nursing home even due to
> ill health in 2008-2009 no MCA is possible in 2009-2010. I'm sure this
> isn't how the legislation was intended. I'm seeing my MP on Friday
> about this matter.

I'm surprised HMRC are trying to withdraw MCA before they know whether he'll 
return home before 5/4/10...!

Have you found a written definition of "separated"?  If it requires that 
they live apart for the whole tax year in order that MCA is withdrawn, can 
the wife fix-it to spend one night in the nursing home?

It's certainly a situation I've not met - and I agree it's probably not what 
was intended.  But then UK law rarely is... :-(

Keep us posted.

-- 
Martin

PeterSaxton wrote:
> I understand that married couples allowance is not possible if not
> living together at any time in the tax year.
>
> I have a client who is 91 and he had to go in a nursing home due to
> ill health although he is still married.
>
> HMRC have confirmed that as he went into a nursing home even due to
> ill health in 2008-2009 no MCA is possible in 2009-2010. I'm sure this
> isn't how the legislation was intended. I'm seeing my MP on Friday
> about this matter.

If the interpretation of the legislation is correct, I'd be interested to 
know whether they'd be entitled to two single person's pensions instead of 
just the married couple's pension.  As you're either married or you're not, 
it seems absurd if the government could win both ways.

On Oct 7, 5:22 pm, "Norman Wells"  wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > I understand that married couples allowance is not possible if not
> > living together at any time in the tax year.
>
> > I have a client who is 91 and he had to go in a nursing home due to
> > ill health although he is still married.
>
> > HMRC have confirmed that as he went into a nursing home even due to
> > ill health in 2008-2009 no MCA is possible in 2009-2010. I'm sure this
> > isn't how the legislation was intended. I'm seeing my MP on Friday
> > about this matter.
>
> If the interpretation of the legislation is correct, I'd be interested to
> know whether they'd be entitled to two single person's pensions instead of
> just the married couple's pension.  As you're either married or you're not,
> it seems absurd if the government could win both ways.

It appears that HMRC helpline advice was wrong - what a shock!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/inmanual/html/In0145/04_0057_IN346.htm

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/remanual/re1060.htm

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:Af3zm.459$ye5.447@newsfe26.ams2...
> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> I understand that married couples allowance is not possible if not
>> living together at any time in the tax year.
>>
>> I have a client who is 91 and he had to go in a nursing home due to
>> ill health although he is still married.
>>
>> HMRC have confirmed that as he went into a nursing home even due to
>> ill health in 2008-2009 no MCA is possible in 2009-2010. I'm sure this
>> isn't how the legislation was intended. I'm seeing my MP on Friday
>> about this matter.
>
> If the interpretation of the legislation is correct, I'd be interested to 
> know whether they'd be entitled to two single person's pensions instead of 
> just the married couple's pension.  As you're either married or you're 
> not, it seems absurd if the government could win both ways.

What do you mean "two single person's pensions"? If they both have a the 
necessary contributions they both *will* get two state pensions in their own 
right, married or not. Being married just means you can get up to 60% basic 
state pension based on your spouse's contribution *if* that's more than your 
own contribution get you.

You can't get less in basic/second state pension by virtue of being married 
(although you can in means tested benefits like pension credit/housing 
benefit etc).

--
Andy

Bitstring , from the wonderful 
person Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said

>What do you mean "two single person's pensions"? If they both have a the
>necessary contributions they both *will* get two state pensions in their own
>right, married or not. Being married just means you can get up to 60% basic
>state pension based on your spouse's contribution *if* that's more than your
>own contribution get you.

It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 
YO man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of 
whether said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of 
government records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even 
exists).

-- 
GSV   Three Minds in a Can
15,621 Km walked. 2,882 Km PROWs surveyed. 52.1% complete.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can"  wrote in message 
news:qRuKWmBAuezKFAfc@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring , from the wonderful person 
> Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said
>
>>What do you mean "two single person's pensions"? If they both have a the
>>necessary contributions they both *will* get two state pensions in their 
>>own
>>right, married or not. Being married just means you can get up to 60% 
>>basic
>>state pension based on your spouse's contribution *if* that's more than 
>>your
>>own contribution get you.
>
> It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 YO 
> man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of whether 
> said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of government 
> records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even exists).

Eh? Where do you get that idea from?

There's no such thing as a "married pension". What there is, is the ability 
to be able to claim a pension based on your spouse's NI record. But you 
can't do that till you reach state pension age.

So the 17 YO would be able to get a pension based on her husband's record - 
but not till she's 68 (or whatever the state pension age is then).

Meanwhile the husband would get the same state pension as if he was single.

--
Andy

Bitstring , from the wonderful 
person Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said

>> It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 YO
>> man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of whether
>> said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of government
>> records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even exists).
>
>Eh? Where do you get that idea from?
>
>There's no such thing as a "married pension". What there is, is the ability
>to be able to claim a pension based on your spouse's NI record. But you
>can't do that till you reach state pension age.
>
>So the 17 YO would be able to get a pension based on her husband's record -
>but not till she's 68 (or whatever the state pension age is then).
>
>Meanwhile the husband would get the same state pension as if he was single.

Based on experience that appears not to be the case. Although admittedly 
the lady was 54 not 17.
8>.

-- 
GSV   Three Minds in a Can
15,621 Km walked. 2,882 Km PROWs surveyed. 52.1% complete.

Bitstring , from the wonderful 
person Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said

>> It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 YO
>> man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of whether
>> said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of government
>> records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even exists).
>
>Eh? Where do you get that idea from?
>
>There's no such thing as a "married pension". What there is, is the ability
>to be able to claim a pension based on your spou
>se's NI record. But you
>can't do that till you reach state pension age.

Nope, actually it's when the spouse reaches pension age ..

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/state-pensions/how-much-will-yo
u-get

See the section 'will I get a pension for my wife', which says:

"
If your wife has only paid contributions based on the married woman's 
reduced rate also known as the married woman's stamp or has never worked 
then she will not receive a pension in her own right. However she can 
receive a basic state retirement pension of 60% of your entitlement 
based on your contribution record. She can claim this when you reach 
your State Pension Age.
"

I believe the rules may be changing from April 2010 .. who can keep up 
with it. 8>.

-- 
GSV   Three Minds in a Can
15,621 Km walked. 2,882 Km PROWs surveyed. 52.1% complete.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can"  wrote in message 
news:GglRqIAyZP0KFAR7@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring , from the wonderful person 
> Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said
>
>>> It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 
>>> YO
>>> man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of 
>>> whether
>>> said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of government
>>> records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even exists).
>>
>>Eh? Where do you get that idea from?
>>
>>There's no such thing as a "married pension". What there is, is the 
>>ability
>>to be able to claim a pension based on your spou
>>se's NI record. But you
>>can't do that till you reach state pension age.
>
> Nope, actually it's when the spouse reaches pension age ..
>
> http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/state-pensions/how-much-will-yo
> u-get
>
> See the section 'will I get a pension for my wife', which says:
>
> "
> If your wife has only paid contributions based on the married woman's 
> reduced rate also known as the married woman's stamp or has never worked 
> then she will not receive a pension in her own right. However she can 
> receive a basic state retirement pension of 60% of your entitlement based 
> on your contribution record. She can claim this when you reach your State 
> Pension Age.

But SHE has to be state pension age as well! That is implicit.

Forget the noddy guide, read NP46, the proper guide to state pensions:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/dr_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@over50/documents/digitalasset/dg_180938.pdf

P44-45:
For a married woman to qualify for a Category B pension her husband must:

  a.. . have reached State Pension age (see pages 18 to 21); and
  b.. . meet the contribution conditions for a Category A pension; and
  c.. . have claimed his Category A pension; and
  d.. . be entitled to his Category A pension.
She must also have reached her State Pension age (see pages 18 to 21) and 
claimed her State Pension. "

> I believe the rules may be changing from April 2010 .. who can keep up 
> with it. 8>.

Before or after April 2010, nobody gets a state pension before their state 
pension age.

--
Andy

"GSV Three Minds in a Can"  wrote in message 
news:pVaKXzFNoL0KFA2D@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring , from the wonderful person 
> Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said
>
>>> It also means you can get extra for a non-pension-age spouse,  eg a 65 
>>> YO
>>> man with a 17 YO spouse can get the married pension, regardless of 
>>> whether
>>> said spouse has any NI contributions (and given the state of government
>>> records keeping, probably regardless of whether she even exists).
>>
>>Eh? Where do you get that idea from?
>>
>>There's no such thing as a "married pension". What there is, is the 
>>ability
>>to be able to claim a pension based on your spouse's NI record. But you
>>can't do that till you reach state pension age.
>>
>>So the 17 YO would be able to get a pension based on her husband's 
>>record -
>>but not till she's 68 (or whatever the state pension age is then).
>>
>>Meanwhile the husband would get the same state pension as if he was 
>>single.
>
> Based on experience that appears not to be the case. Although admittedly 
> the lady was 54 not 17.

So who is getting what, exactly?

A 54 year old can't get a state pension, period.

A 65+ year old man with a 54 year old wife will get exactly the same state 
pension as he'd get if he were single.

Not sure of the rules for pension credit and I CBA looking them up - but 
possibly someone over state pension age with a spouse under could get the 
couple's amount - as means tested benefits are jointly assessed.

--
Andy

Bitstring , from the wonderful 
person Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said
>But SHE has to be state pension age as well! That is implicit.

No it isn't (yet)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/dr_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@ov
er50/documents/digitalasset/dg_180938.pdf

>P44-45:
>For a married woman to qualify for a Category B pension her husband must:

I'm not talking about category B, I'm actually talking about additional 
category A for the retired partner, based on having a  dependant. i.e. a 
'married person's pension'.

>> I believe the rules may be changing from April 2010 .. who can keep up
>> with it. 8>.
>
>Before or after April 2010, nobody gets a state pension before their state
>pension age.

Read page 41 - a retired man can (currently) get additional pension for 
a dependant adult below retirement age ..

A person can claim an increase in their State Pension for one dependent 
adult,
but only until 6 April 2010. Increases that have been awarded by that 
date will
be protected until:
• the qualifying rules are no longer met; or
• where the increase is being paid for a wife, she reaches State 
Pension age; or
• 5 April 2020;
whichever happens first.
[SSCBA sections 83-85, 88; SS (Dependency) Regs 1977; Pensions Act 2007
section 4]
An increase for a wife
A man can get an increase of Category A pension for his wife if he gets 
some
basic Category A pension. (The rules for women who want to claim an 
increase on
their Category A pension for their husband are different – see page 42 
for details.)
He will get less than the standard amount for his wife if he qualifies 
for a basic
State Pension at a reduced rate.
He cannot normally get an increase for his wife if:
• she gets State Pension or any other State benefit for herself;
• she gets a training allowance or a job release allowance;
• she has earnings, an occupational pension or a personal pension 
above a set
amount (currently £60.50 a week for 2008/09); or
• he gets benefit for her under the Industrial Injuries or War 
Pensions Schemes.
But if another State benefit is paid to, or for, his wife and it is less 
than the
increase in his basic State Pension for her, he will be able to get the 
difference in
the two amounts. This is paid with his State Pension.
If his wife does not live with him, he can get an increase for her if he 
pays
maintenance to her of at least the amount of the increase and she does 
not have
earnings, an occupational pension or a personal pension that are more 
than the
weekly standard amount (for 2008/09 this amount is £54.35).
[SSCBA section 83; SS Dependency Regs 1977]
41

-- 
GSV   Three Minds in a Can
15,621 Km walked. 2,882 Km PROWs surveyed. 52.1% complete.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can"  wrote in message 
news:335tvDCCKY0KFAGH@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring , from the wonderful person 
> Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> said
>>But SHE has to be state pension age as well! That is implicit.
>
> No it isn't (yet)
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/dr_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@ov
> er50/documents/digitalasset/dg_180938.pdf
>
>>P44-45:
>>For a married woman to qualify for a Category B pension her husband must:
>
> I'm not talking about category B, I'm actually talking about additional 
> category A for the retired partner, based on having a  dependant. i.e. a 
> 'married person's pension'.
>
>>> I believe the rules may be changing from April 2010 .. who can keep up
>>> with it. 8>.
>>
>>Before or after April 2010, nobody gets a state pension before their state
>>pension age.
>
> Read page 41 - a retired man can (currently) get additional pension for a 
> dependant adult below retirement age ..

Ah ha! Apologies - you are right. It's still true that nobody gets a state 
pension before their state pension age, but it seems there still is 
provision for a "dependant" in the state pension system - although this is 
means-tested as explained on p.41.

It really is a sexist throwback that is thankfully being got rid of - note 
how a man can get this means tested increase for his wife providing she's 
not earning, but a wife can only get an increase for her husband if he's not 
earning AND was on incapacity benefit (p.42)!

So a woman doesn't need an excuse not to be working, a man does!

--
Andy