CSA and Benefits in kind

kelloggs36

And if your income had dropped they would have done a new assessment if you had requested one - did you?

marksoton

A company car is exactly that, for use in his duties as an employee. Why should you have a cut of that ?!

The rate of tax he pays for this are set depending on the car and it's emissions amongst other things.

It is only recently that NRP's who are given car allowances have been allowed to have a proportion of that payment disregarded. Damn good thing too IMO.

amanda29kb

If the car is required for work he is not getting money for it - it is a company car. However, any additions to his wage slip that are taxable ARE included as income and used in the assessment. If they are not taxable they are not included, simple as that. They are the rules.
It does work both ways, believe me.

Cozworth806

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Try finding some commissioners' decisions on the issue on www1osscsc.gov.uk click on decisions and put in child support and it is a matter of searching - I know there is a quite recent one about benefits in kind regarding vehicles.

Here you go
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2331/CCS%201769%202007-00.doc
and the one mentioned which the commissioner refers to
http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j1734/R(CS)_6%2005%20bv.doc

You can therefore apply for a departure or variation on it, but would have to show/prove that he took the car in order to lower his CM payments.

(I was actually involved in the original appeal in 2007 and the fact now so read are rather familiar to me despite being 2 years ago, and having since changed roles)

kelloggs36

Thanks Cozworth - I knew they ere there somewhere!!!

marksoton

In that case i can see why. A BMW M6 worth £ 80,000 and the NRP has the choice of motor. I would have been surprised if the PWC had not won.

Cozworth806

marksoton wrote: »

In that case i can see why. A BMW M6 worth £ 80,000 and the NRP has the choice of motor. I would have been surprised if the PWC had not won.

And yet IIRC it was touch and go and the problem is proving intent, so thereby only the most blatant get picked out to succeed with a variation or appeal.

In the OP's case if the benefits in kind have been given for a number of years and were in force prior to the CSA becoming involved then it would be difficult to prove the case to a point where diversion would be accepted

Stoopid

Sharree wrote: »

Does he spend much time with the kids? surely if you are finding it hard, and he has the system "sewn up" maybe suggest shared custody. Im not really in a position to take sides as we have problems with the ex using the system to her advantage, lying and getting away with i,t because of the systems failings and just generally being one sided, but there must be a way around your problem. Surly if he has all these "perks" it would benefit your children to be a part of them.

The point is, he doesn't want shared custody. He didn't want sole custody. He just wants to see them when it fits in with his busy life.
He doesn't want to have them more than he has to, ie only when it is convenient to him
For all those NRP I hear about who are fighting to see their children, my ex refuses to see them as much as I think he should. Solicitor told me "The courts cannot force a NRP to have more access than they want"
He wants to "Get on with my life" ( his exact words) and having his life encumbered by children does not enter into it.

marksoton wrote:

A company car is exactly that, for use in his duties as an employee. Why should you have a cut of that ?!
The rate of tax he pays for this are set depending on the car and it's emissions amongst other things.
It is only recently that NRP's who are given car allowances have been allowed to have a proportion of that payment disregarded. Damn good thing too IMO.

Firstly I am not talking about car allowance or travel allowance or travel expenses.

His company car is not for use in his duties, it is a perk of the job. Full stop. He drives to work, he drives home, just like I do. Only difference is my car was second hand when I got it and has already gone round the clock. I paid for the car, for the petrol, for the tax, insurance, servicing and breakdown cover out of my salary which I had already paid tax, NI and superannuation on.
He pays for nothing, his company does. Not just for any 'Business' journeys he may do - EVERYTHING. That is why it is classed as INCOME

No doubt someone will argue that his company paying for his private medical insurance is also so he can fulfill his duties.:cool:

Thanks for all the replies.
I think my case is another destined for the side on PWC comes off worse. Not that I think the CSA are biased in favour of NRP, just their system/rules are rubbish.
As Cozworth806 pointed out, and anyone with a calculator can prove, the more benefits in kind the NRP gets, the less maintenance he pays. If he had an £80,000 BMW he could end up paying £5 a week child maintenance - does anyone, PWC or NRP think that is fair when he is a Company Director ?
Compare that to what you are paying out. Would it be fair for your BIg boss with the silk suits and the BMW to be paying less than you ?

Also Sharree, would his children driving round in an £80,000 BMW really make them better people, feel more loved and valued, and make up for them going without in other areas of their life because of lack of child maintenance ?

He probably pays less child maintenance then other NRP who cannot even afford a car at all. Do all you NRP out there who claim to have been stitched up by your ex and/or CSA think that is fair ?
But as everybody should know by now, the whole system is not designed to be "fair".

Sharree

Im not just on about them being driven around in a nice car... my point was that if you had shared custody (which i was no sure weather you had or not) would benefit your children full stop. He obviously is very wealthy, probably has a nice house and lifestyle, they would benefit from that lifestyle. My father was a very wealthy man, knew how to work the system, mum got nothing, but he shared custody with me and my brother, so we benefited from that. Its the good guys who pay for their children who get all the !!!! from the CSA i.e my hubbie, and its the ones with plenty of money who are clever and work the system that get away with it, Its just the way it is and there is nothing anyone can do about it. all I can do is tell you about a contractor we work for. He owns a very succesful business, and when the csa came knocking he hid it well, csa awarded his ex £50 per week... a pittance from what it should actually have been, so she would not accept this from the csa and did everything herself, went round his house, took pictures of everything, she knew about his business and what it was capable of as she had once been his secretary, compiled lots of evidence, and went to court herself and presented it to the judge... needless to say, the judge came down in her favor to a VERY hefty tune. It was a lot of hard work and investigating, but she got what she wanted in the end. I wasn`t being flippant in what i said, but am just a bit bitter in mine and my husbands case, where the csa have screwed us over big time and is making my hubby pay again and is believing the ex when she is saying he has not paid when he has, we just dont have the proof, they wont even accept a signed letter from the daughter backing us up.

dimbo61

Does the NEW csa3 take 12% of your gross income into account
so no tax,national insurance,PENSION,COMPANY CAR,PRIVATE HEALTH CARE,
or any other benefit in kind will count as its gross pay!