In July 2005 the European Court of Human Rights
(‘ECtHR’) gave its decision in the case of PM v United
Kingdom. The judgment went against the UK Government with the ECtHR
finding that the UK Government (HMRC) had breached the applicant's
Convention rights. The ECtHR decision became final on 19 October
2005.
PM lived with Miss D between 1987 and 1997 but they never
married. In 1991 they had a daughter. In 1997, PM and
Miss D separated and in 1998 they entered into a Deed of Separation
by which PM undertook to pay weekly maintenance of £25 for his
daughter. PM’s payments under the Deed have increased over
time to £35pw.
For the tax year 1998-99 relief on the payments made to the
mother for the benefit of the child was refused on the grounds that
the underlying legislation only permitted relief for the support of
a child where the parents had actually been married.
The ECtHR decided that marriage was irrelevant in this
context as an unmarried parent had the same responsibilities as
married parents. The reference to marriage discriminated against
unmarried parents. Consequently, the ECtHR decided that relief
should be given whether or not the parents had ever been married.
From tax year 2000-01 tax relief for qualifying maintenance
relief and married couple’s allowance –to which the
amount of QMP relief is tied - was amended as part of wider reforms
by insertion of an age restriction. This age restriction limits
claims to relief to those where one of the couple was born before 6
April 1935. As PM was born in 1956, the last year he could claim
relief was 1999–2000.
