Child Support and Bonus Payments, Ltd Companies, etc

chriszzz wrote: »

Hi Playinghardball,

As it is only a small percentage, then it would be neither here or there for me, as long as the NRP was spending it on such things, treats, activities then in my way of thinking the child is getting the best of both, mum can do stuff and dad can do stuff, make it fair.

If my ex was paying 15% of his salary for the up-keep of his child, I would be happy with that, I personally wouldnt be interested in his overtime, as am sure my child would reap the benefits directly from dad.

Everyone is different and entitled to be who they are, I dont fit into the catergory of taking everything possible. I dont need to be that way, my child has contact with his dad, hes happy am happy, as it stands I dont recieve maintenance due to his dad being on DLA but when he was well he did contribute.

PWC can chase for every penny I havent got a problem with that, thats up to them am honestly just glad am not like that.

Nice to hear from you, we dont have to agree but it doesnt mean either way is right its whats right for you and your child.

Yes, I get where you are coming from and I agree totally with you, you have an ex who puts their child first, you are both fortunate.

I know there are others like my ex, however, that would deny anything, be it 15% or 1% just to spite the 'greedy' PWC's, without giving a thought to whether it hurts the PWC such as myself, or their children. Whether my ex is in the minority or majority, I can't say. I can only say that I think the child support system spells it out fairly for the children.

I think the right way is to totally support your child, both PWC and NRP, and stay within the CSA guidelines to do so. Sadly, not all do this, hence the need for this forum and these discussions.

I'd be interested in your full story Comedy, I'm tired of reading posts from NRPs who have PWCs who spend 'not one penny' on their children. I'm tired of reading posts which are not about how the hell do I get access from this terrible parent who spends 'not one penny' on the children but actually just wants to avoid paying any money to said neglectful parent. I would find it refreshing to actually read a story about someone who wants to pay less money to their PWC for the right reasons ie they are actually going to spend the 10-20% of their net pay for the direct benefit of their child.

I see pd001 has made an appearance, for my own peace of mind could someone please link to a post where he has been at all helpful or supportive of a woman (I'm willing to take a female NRP at this point) as I really really want to think more of him than I do

And the dubious speedster - the frugal Dad who buys shoes from ebay to save the pennies yet appears to be operating a multicompany shady deal all in order so that he can decide how much child maintenance his undeserving ex should get (no doubt he is also one of these honourable parents who is putting money by for his daughter). Of course he'd like a PM to give his advice, some of it is distinctly illegal.

I'm sorry to sound so jaded on your thread Comedy but it saddens me when the usual suspects make an appearance to say the same tired things.

Anyway - to advice: I cannot comment on your self employed status, I have experience of dealing with an ex who has a Ltd company. If you are the director and sole shareholder of a company then you are deemed to have the ability to control the amount of income you receive. Dividends do count on CSA2 in this situation (this was made very clear at my Tribunal) but the loophole is that you do not have to declare them, same as salary rises etc. If you decide to pay a minimal child maintenance and your PWC disputes this then the PWC will almost certainly fail at the CSA stage (they are looking for an easy life). If your PWC is persistent then eventually your case will go to a Tribunal. For this tribunal you will be expected to provide all of your personal and business accounts (both banking and accounting), you will also be expected to provide all your credit card and loan accounts (again both personal and business). You will also be expected to provide details of all contracts - my ex was asked to provide the last 3 years worth of everything as I recall.

All of this information is made available to both parties ie both the NRP and the PWC. At the Tribunal there was both a Judge and an accountant. A full day was allocated so believe me they go through these accounts with a fine toothcomb.

At my Tribunal the NRP had to explain several payments going in and out his personal account as well as some business transactions. I was allowed to ask him questions and of course because I had access to all of his financial affairs I was able to come preprepared.

The Tribunal has the power to 'deem' an income. It seems my NRP felt that if he stopped taking dividends then only his salary would be assessed (minimum wage of course), sadly he found this was not the case, the Tribunal looks at the whole picture and for a one man band ltd company it is hard to escape the fact that you are the company.

However, there are legitimate expenses you can claim and these do not come under the purview of child support, so if you really are renting then this is an expense, you are able to rent a proportion of your house (most mortgage companies don't mind if you are a service company) and claim part of the utility bills. None of these expenses will count as income but they must be real.

Finally the PWC can ask for Tribunal after Tribunal, every year it can be claimed you live beyond your means, have the claim turned down by the CSA and then go through the whole rigmarole of revealing your financial situation to an ex for a Tribunal. Apart from time the PWC doesn't have a lot to lose.

There are is at least one person on this board who has managed through tenacity and knowledge to have the NRP pay out substantial backpayments for child maintenance, the NRP I believe was self employed but I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

There are legitimate ways to avoid paying child maintenance at all but they involve either having no income or emigrating and living somewhere with no remo agreement.

Sou

speedster wrote: »

nothing dubious about me sou.

my ex played the game, lied and decieved, acted fraudulently and used the threat of no contact to increase her maintenance.

unlike my ex, i do not have a nice car, we have a 15 yr old snot box. she is also still committing fraud, so is reasonably comfortable, wheras we have to duck and dive to get by.

perhaps some of the whiners and moaners on here should take a leaf out of my ex's book. :T

Yeah, your ex sounds a saint. (it sounds like you've taught her a lesson, you must be proud of yourself)

Sou isn't the only one that has taken notice all of the morally questionable advise that you give out to NRP wanting to find loopholes to avoid paying to support thier kids. "PM me, I'll tell ya how its done m8"

Good on Sou for taking her case to tribunal and perservering. And good for your kid that you are finally paying what you should have been paying all along.

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Yeah, your ex sounds a saint. (it sounds like you've taught her a lesson, you must be proud of yourself)

Sou isn't the only one that has taken notice all of the morally questionable advise that you give out to NRP wanting to find loopholes to avoid paying to support thier kids. "PM me, I'll tell ya how its done m8"

Good on Sou for taking her case to tribunal and perservering. And good for your kid that you are finally paying what you should have been paying all along.

aye. i am very proud of the fact i stood up to her and the faceless fascists at the csa.

i refused to be blackmailed and have my daughter used as a weapon. i went the court route and had a good result. i walk taller now i'm legally on an even keel, so to speak.

and as for the csa, it was her greed and envy that was ultimately her downfall.

it took her 3 years to realise that and all she has achieved is to 1. lose the last bit of respect i had for her and 2, upset and help to alienate her own daughter. which is why she's now having so many problems with her at home.

what goes round, comes round.

they don't have the power to lift the corporate veil. there have been a few cases where they have "deemed" an income etc. and if you don't go in prepared at tribunal, you will inevitibaly lose.

thing is, the corporate veil was set up to protect powerful business people, which is why the chimps at the csa have no chance against it.

the company is an identity in it's own right.