In Ifoem Odina v HMRC [2026] TC09767, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an individual who had been subject to financial abuse from her former spouse, and who had not seen or approved her tax returns, was nevertheless subject to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge. Rental income remained taxable on her, forming part of her Adjusted Net Income, despite the fact that she had not received it.
Ifoem Odina’s (IO) tax returns for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 tax years reported Adjusted Net Income of £56,371, £67,412 and £70,860, respectively.
- These returns included property income of £13,243 in 2019-20, £17,412 in 2020-21, and £20,590 in 2021-22.
- In all three tax years, IO received Child Benefit, but no High-Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) was declared.
- In January 2024, HMRC raised Assessments for the HICBC totalling £6,304 across the three tax years.
- Following a Statutory review, which upheld the assessments, IO Appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), arguing that the assessments were based on the process of financial abuse and incorrect income reporting.
- In making her appeal, IO referred to a 2025 Family Court judgment relating to the financial settlement between IO and her former husband.
- The Family Court confirmed that there were three properties in joint names and IO did not receive the rental income attributed to her. The former husband received all the income from the properties.
- IO noted that she had not directly provided any information to the accountants to complete her tax returns. All information had been obtained from her by her former husband, who passed it on.
- IO said she had not been asked to provide details of Child Benefit received and was not aware of the obligation to report such amounts.
- IO stated that the accountants had neither obtained approval of her completed tax returns nor sought her permission to submit them to HMRC before doing so.
The FTT found that:
- There was clear evidence from the Family Court decision of financial abuse by IO’s former husband. He had supplied the information for her tax return to the accountants and had kept all income from the equally owned properties.
- IO had not directly given information to the accountants, nor had she been consulted by them about the submission of her tax returns.
- Where property is held in the joint names of individuals who are married and living together, s.836 ITA 2007 states that those individuals are treated for Income Tax purposes as being Beneficially entitled to the income in equal shares.
- There was no evidence that IO and her former husband were not ‘living together’ during the period 2019-20 to 2021-22.
- The exception to the s.836 treatment is where the individuals’ actual entitlement to income from the jointly held property differs, and they make a joint declaration of unequal beneficial interests to HMRC, using Form 17.
- The Family Court and IO confirmed that she jointly owned the three properties with her former husband.
- As such, s.836 applied for Income Tax purposes: IO was beneficially entitled to receive an equal share of the rental income and was required to pay tax on it.
- For the purposes of reporting and paying Income Tax, it was not relevant whether the co-owners actually received the income in equal shares.
- As a result of being taxable on 50% of the property income, IO’s ANI exceeded the HICBC threshold in the tax years under appeal.
- As no Child Benefit had been declared in IO’s tax returns but had been received, the HICBC was due.
The appeal was dismissed.
Useful guides on this topic
Joint property: Legal v beneficial ownership
What is the difference between legal and beneficial ownership? What are the tax consequences? Are the rules different for married couples and civil partners?
High-Income Child Benefit Tax Charge
What is the High-Income Child Benefit Charge? Who pays it? Can you appeal against an assessment? Are there any useful cases from the tax tribunals?
Adjusted net income
What is Adjusted Net Income? How do I calculate it? Why is it important?
External link