Parents warned child benefit could stop if they don't act ahead of looming deadline
Parents warned child benefit could stop if they don't act ahead of looming deadline
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is warning parents that they need to take action to avoid missing out on Child Benefits which could be worth thousands of pounds each year
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is currently issuing reminders to parents of teenagers aged 16 to 19 ahead of a key deadline in August. If they fail to update their Child Benefit claim by this date, payments will cease automatically.
The cut-off point for updating the online account to maintain the benefit is August 31, 2025. This update is crucial for parents whose teens are pursuing further education or training. For all the latest money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here .
Parents can swiftly and conveniently extend their claim using the HMRC app or by visiting GOV.UK online. The reminder letters also feature a useful QR code that directs parents straight to the digital service on GOV.UK.
Child Benefit stands at £26.05 weekly for the eldest or an only child, totalling £1,354.60 annually, and £17.25 per week for each additional child, amounting to £897 yearly. Last year saw over 870,000 parents renew their Child Benefit claims for their teenagers, with most confirmations done quickly online or through the HMRC app.
Myrtle Lloyd, HMRC's Director General for Customer Services, commented: "Child Benefit is an important boost to families. As soon as you know what your teenager is planning to do, extend your claim in minutes to guarantee your payments continue in September. Simply go to GOV.UK or the HMRC app to confirm today," reports the Daily Record.
Children who are engaged in full-time studies in approved non-advanced education are eligible for continued Child Benefit payments.
Child Benefit will continue to be provided for children enrolled in certain unpaid approved training courses.
If a child decides not to pursue further education or training, parents can simply notify HMRC online or via the app, and payments will be adjusted accordingly.
If either the claimant or their partner earns between £60,000 and £80,000, the higher earner will be subject to the High Income Child Benefit Charge.
For families in this income bracket, the online Child Benefit tax calculator can provide an estimate of the benefit they will receive and the potential charge.
As part of the UK Government's Plan for Change, starting this summer, families will have the option to pay the charge directly through their PAYE tax code using a new digital service, eliminating the need to file a Self Assessment tax return. This new service aims to reduce bureaucracy for eligible employed parents liable to the High Income Child Benefit Charge, although those who prefer to pay the charge through their Self Assessment can continue to do so.
Families who have previously opted out of Child Benefit payments can choose to opt back in and restart their payments quickly and easily online or via the HMRC app.
Article continues below
Upon turning 16, teenagers can take control of their Child Trust Fund savings account, which could potentially be worth thousands of pounds. They can withdraw the money once they turn 18.
Child Trust Funds were established for every child born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011.
Teenagers or their parents and guardians who are aware of their Child Trust Fund provider can get in touch with them directly. If they're unsure about the whereabouts of their account, a free online tool on GOV.UK can help locate their Child Trust Fund provider.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
10 hours ago
- Wales Online
He left the country after a £50m money-laundering case. Now he has new life in sun
He left the country after a £50m money-laundering case. Now he has new life in sun The money laundering sparked a stranger-than-fiction chain of events involving a lottery winner, student houses and a bomb plot Half Moon Bay, an Auckland suburb where businessman Gregory Candy-Wallace appears to be based A man who ran companies that a court found laundered vast sums of money in Wales and England appears to have started a new life thousands of miles away. New Zealand authorities are "assessing" whether Gregory Candy-Wallace should be disqualified from managing businesses in the country after we informed them he had been operating there. It comes after the 64-year-old Brit settled a legal claim in the UK last year over his having controlled a network of firms that defrauded the taxman, HMRC, of tens of millions of pounds. There was due to be a civil trial at the High Court in London but the National Crime Agency (NCA) reached a settlement with Candy-Wallace and his companies last June, recovering assets worth £5.8m — a fraction of the more than £50m diverted from the taxman. A judge later said the money recovered was "the proceeds of crime". Now WalesOnline can reveal Candy-Wallace — a water polo enthusiast from Sussex whose companies used addresses in Cardiff for the money-laundering scheme — has more recent ventures in Auckland, where he is a majority shareholder in two companies and owns 49% of a third. We obtained court documents from the UK court case listing Candy-Wallace's address as a detached five-bedroom house in a wealthy coastal suburb of Auckland, with an outdoor pool and picturesque views onto the yacht-dotted Half Moon Bay. The home is valued at around £900,000. The Auckland-based firms are FM Group Ltd, which bills itself as a chemical wholesaler; ACM Environmental Services Ltd, an "environmental consultancy service"; and the curiously named 846361 Ltd, which says it is in the business of waterproofing buildings. Article continues below Candy-Wallace was previously a director of another Auckland company, Amoeba Investments Ltd, which classed itself as being in the "rental of residential property" industry. The firm owned a four-bedroom semi-detached house in Yorkshire, England, which the NCA applied for permission to seize before reaching a settlement. Who is Gregory Candy-Wallace? Candy-Wallace does not appear to be active on social media and — barring coverage of his court case — there is little trace of him on the internet. What can be found is mostly tied to his fondness for water polo, from refereeing in the Sussex league in 2013 to winning a tournament in Guam the same year and playing for a club in Dubai in 2022. Members of Sussex's water polo community told us they were puzzled when Candy-Wallace suddenly "disappeared" from the local scene a few years ago without explanation. Records show Candy-Wallace has been linked to civil tax fraud cases in the UK for two decades. One of his companies, described as a former "CD pressing business", was found to be "connected with fraud" as far back as 2006 in the form of invalid invoices. Another civil case dated back to 2005 when firms owned by Candy-Wallace were found to be linked to the "fraudulent evasion" of VAT by what the judge referred to as "the Malaga cell" of an illicit contra-trading network. WalesOnline's interest in his activities was first sparked last year when we investigated a network of "dormant companies" in Wales and England. There was little online to indicate what these firms actually did, beyond brief descriptions on Companies House such as "combined office administrative service activities" and "payroll services". One director, Damien Paton, was said to be a French national born in 1994. But elsewhere on Companies House his year of birth was given as 1960. In both records he was registered to a French address that was not a real place. Another of the directors was Candy-Wallace. One of the addresses used by the network was in Cranbrook Street, in Cardiff's student heartland of Cathays (Image: Conor Gogarty ) When we scanned through the many companies, a cluster of 12 stuck out. All were based at the same terraced house in Cranbrook Street in Cathays, the student heartland of Cardiff. It turned out the home was being used as a fake address for money-laundering. Landlord Nasser Nazemi told us the home started to be bombarded with letters from Companies House in 2017 after businesses had been registered there despite having no connection to the property. "The cheek of it," said Mr Nazemi. "We had to involve a solicitor to protect ourselves and it ended up costing us about £600 in legal fees." The firms in the money-laundering network were controlled by Candy-Wallace, according to the NCA, which said the "organised crime group" diverted away more than £50m of 'pay as you earn' and national insurance payments by "offering outsourcing services to third-party companies but then failing to pay the appropriate sums to HMRC". The funds were initially moved through a complex network of UK bank accounts before mostly ending up in Hong Kong and Taiwan accounts. Why wasn't he prosecuted? After last year's money-laundering settlement, we raised questions over the NCA's decision not to bring a criminal case against Candy-Wallace, particularly given that only a small portion of the £50m was recovered — on top of his decades-long links to tax fraud. As the NCA's own barrister James Laddie KC put it, the money-laundering ring was a 'deliberate and organised' fraud that featured 'inducements to secure clients'. Mr Laddie also said the settlement was a 'formal acknowledgement' that the funds were the proceeds of crime. Mr Justice Julian Knowles also described the funds in this way and said the network was part of "unlawful" payroll and money-laundering schemes. People are regularly imprisoned for fraud involving comparatively tiny sums of money. When we asked the NCA why it would not be bringing criminal proceedings, its spokeswoman said: "Civil recovery investigations are an efficient way to reclaim funds that have been acquired through unlawful conduct, and are not dependent on a criminal conviction." Jonathan Nuttall (Image: Press Association ) There was a criminal prosecution of one person involved in the network, but not for money-laundering. In 2023 one of Candy-Wallace's associates, Jonathan Nuttall, was jailed for eight years and two months after being found guilty of orchestrating a bomb plot against NCA lawyers. Nuttall had conspired to plant two explosives in London's legal district after becoming upset at the prospect of losing his stately home in Hampshire as assets were being seized in the civil case. The 51-year-old's wife, Amanda Nuttall — who once won £2.4m from her first lottery ticket — agreed to pay £1.4m and give up the stately home as part of the recent settlement. New Zealand Companies Office is now "assessing" Candy-Wallace's involvement in the Auckland firms. Its investigations team manager Vanessa Cook told us it is looking into whether his past conduct should disqualify him from directing or managing companies in New Zealand. Candy-Wallace and the Auckland companies were approached for comment. The only response we received was from a construction business whose email address was listed as a point of contact for one of Candy-Wallace's companies. The building firm said: "I don't know Mr Candy-Wallace, haven't had any dealings with him, and haven't seen him before." In the UK, registering sham addresses on Companies House has been a longstanding avenue for fraud. There is no requirement for those setting up a company to prove its legitimacy — and for those who actually live at the address, the fraud can ruin their credit rating due to the activity linked to their home. Article continues below The mass-registering of "burner companies" allows gangs to open UK bank accounts for money-laundering. However, later this year ID verification is finally due to become a requirement to start a company — after more than a decade of the system being abused — though experts have warned the scale of change needed will take time. If you know of a story we should be investigating, email us at
Scottish Sun
a day ago
- Scottish Sun
Scots businesses caught ‘deliberately' tax dodging named and shamed
The lengthy list of offending UK firms includes convenience stores, internet sales businesses, wholesalers and takeaways north of the border PAY UP Scots businesses caught 'deliberately' tax dodging named and shamed Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) SCOTTISH firms caught owing hundreds of thousands of pounds after tax dodging have been named and shamed. HM Revenue and Customs has released a list of companies that have been caught out not paying their dues. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 HMRC has penalised several Scottish-based companies deliberately tax defaulting Credit: PA 2 Day-to-Day Scotland Ltd was one of several firms caught dodging tax payments Credit: Google Maps The lengthy list of offending UK firms includes convenience stores, internet sales businesses, wholesalers and takeaways north of the border. The operator of Day-to-Day Scotland Ltd was caught swerving £131,759 worth of tax between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2023. The firm, based at 47 Hope Street in Glasgow, was hit with a £79,055 penalty. Internet sales company SK and SA Limited dodged paying £139,184 in tax between February 1, 2015 and January 31, 2018. The business on Ness Street in Glasgow was fined £80,031.19 but HMRC. Mohammad Qasim Umar Nagora, who formerly traded as 7 Star Spices, dodged paying £97,195 in tax between April 6, 2013 and April 5, 2020. The takeaway firm, previously based on Mosspark Drive in Glasgow, was penalised £47,382. Kai Xin Street Limited, which operates as Kai Xin, was snared after evading paying a whopping £299,701 in tax between February 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022. The fast food business, based on King Street in Rutherglen, near Glasgow, was fined £177,568. In Edinburgh, capital gain operator Wai Man Lo was found to have failed to pay £290,450 in tax between April 6, 2018 and April 5, 2019. Five 50ps that could earn you thousands The firm, based on March Road in the capital, has been billed £215,281. Wholesaler Ellol Limited was caught swerving £63,902 in tax payments between August 30, 2022 and February 28, 2023. The company, based on Colinton Road in Glasgow, has been fined £44,731. Mohammed Zaheer Anwar, who previously traded as Lochend Fry, dodged £27,630 in tax between April 6, 2015 and April 5, 2021. The businessman, formerly based on Lochend Road South in Edinburgh, has been hit penalised £13,796. In Perth, Baran Melisa Limited, formerly trading as Marini's, failed to pay a staggering £797,177 in tax between June 1, 2012 and August 31, 2018. The takeaway and restaurant, previously based on St Catherine's Road, has been billed £691,132. If HMRC finds that a firm has deliberately evaded paying, tax evasion penalties can be imposed, amounting to 70 per cent of the tax owed. If businesses or individuals fail to pay tax, HMRC can take further enforcement, including prosecution and seizure of possessions. In rare cases, offenders have been sent to prison for tax evasion. Kevin Hubbard, HMRC's director of individuals and small business compliance, said: "The overwhelming majority pay the tax they owe, but for those who refuse, we use a range of tools to take firm action. 'This includes publishing the names of those penalised for deliberate defaults to influence taxpayer behaviour and encourage defaulters to engage with HMRC." HMRC's full list of deliberate tax defaulters can be viewed here.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Inheritance tax is heinous, but avoiding it could be a bigger disaster
They say nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, but I propose to add a third to the list: investors doing everything imaginable to avoid taxes. The bigger the bite HMRC wants, the heavier the hustle to shield hard-earned assets. Thanks to Labour dragging pensions into the inheritance tax net, it is now a stampede. Yet the avoidance path conceals huge pits I've watched investors fall into throughout my 50 years managing money. Estate planning is wonderful, but too often, sensible planning leads to tax considerations dictating investment decisions. This raises risk, reduces returns and can hit your planned inheritance much harder than any tax rise. Consider popular ways people now seek to shield pensions from inheritance tax: investing in Aim shares is one, with the double benefit of stamp duty exemption and business property relief. Enterprise Investing Schemes (EIS) are another, and business property relief schemes letting you access unlisted companies is a third. All these sprang from past governments' investment incentives, hoping to spur entrepreneurship and startups. A fine aim. But pursuing a strategy aimed at these incentives solely for tax benefits aren't the sunlit uplands some promise. You don't need me to tell you Aim has a long history of scandals and failures alongside those select success stories that graduated to the main market. Or that its stocks are Britain's tiniest, with a median market capitalisation of £15m. Or that FTSE's Aim All Share is down nearly -30pc since 2000, while the FTSE All Share has soared over 275pc. Astronomical missed returns are a dear price to pay for tax relief, particularly one whose relief is rapidly diminishing – Aim stocks' BPR relief drops from 100pc to 50pc next year. EIS and BPR schemes carry another risk: overloading on unlisted companies. These sport the veneer of stability and, in EIS's case, supposedly high growth potential. They are billed as a way for normal folks to invest in venture capital and reap big rewards when a startup hits it big, but the reality is those are needles in a haystack of hard-to-value, illiquid investments. Winners aren't guaranteed – untraded doesn't mean stable. It just means fewer pricing points, hiding the inherent behind-the-scenes volatility. That is illiquidity – a bug, not a feature. You risk being unable to sell when you really need to without suffering a steep discount. Aim companies aren't categorically horrid. Some are fine, even great. EIS and BPR can also be fine tools, in certain situations. But it all depends on your broader goals and time horizon, which gets us to the root of the problem. Your fixation on tax steers you away from why you invested in the first place. Done right, long-term investing is about picking the correct asset allocation – the blend of stocks, bonds and other securities – for reaching your goals over your investment time horizon. Your goals are the primary purpose for your money, usually growth, cash flow or some combination of the two. Your time horizon is how long your money must last, usually your lifetime – clearly longer if inheritance tax is a concern. Throughout history, stocks and bonds have done a marvellous job of delivering the growth and cash flow people need, given a sufficiently long-term horizon and reasonable withdrawals. Stocks deliver abundant long-term growth, despite bear markets and volatility along the way, while bonds cushion expected short-term volatility and support cash flow with interest. British and global listed stocks and bonds are liquid – easy to sell in a pinch to cover expenses both expected and sudden. When tax avoidance takes supremacy, will you let it steer you from whichever liquid asset allocation aligned with your goals and needs? If your pension is loaded with Aim shares, EIS or BPR schemes to reduce inheritance tax, it risks not delivering the returns needed to support your cash flow later on. Aged poverty is a real pain. Or maybe your pension ends up worth vastly less for your heirs, after tax, than if you had opted for a simple blend of stocks and bonds. If you have a sudden expense, your pension may not be liquid enough to cover it. Then what do you do? Borrow? Don't forget, tax policy is a whack-a-mole game. Pensions were exempt from inheritance tax until they weren't. After halving Aim relief in 2024's Budget, Labour capped BPR last year. Some ministers floated scrapping Aim relief altogether. What then? If you focus on tax optimisation, you may find yourself needing to make big changes again. And again. And again. Changes cost money. Taxes are certain in general, but the specifics are shape-shifting. When your goals and time horizon determine your strategy, there are fewer moving parts. You can build a diversified strategy with a long history of delivering what you need, while taking sensible steps to reduce tax exposure where available. Tax avoidance is nice. Liquidity, predictability and reaching your goals? Nicer.
