CSA and Benefits in kind

Stoopid

dimbo61 wrote: »

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!

Sorry dimbo61, I am clearly not up to speed on csa2, let alone csa3 - learning as I go along.
Have you got a link though to a summary of csa3, and can I opt to change from csa2 to csa3, and can it be back dated to the start of my claim with them ?
I cannot believe (knowing the csa as I am coming to do) that anything can be that simple.:cool:
Doing a quick sum on 12% of his gross salary - would double his child maintenance payments !!!!:eek: If it is 12% of his Gross Income, it would be even more !!
That is how much difference it would make in my case.

I must admit I am getting to the point where I think it is less stressful to just let it go. It is bad enough having to fight the ex, but to have to fight an 'unfair' system after a lengthy and expensive divorce is just the last straw.

Thanks also to Sharree, but I have already given the csa his tax returns, court financial papers and proof of his income. His Income is not in dispute by anyone, the Tax dept have known about it for years - it is all legal and "above board". The CSA are just not interested - which if what I am learning on here is true, they are right to do - because they do not take into account his INCOME, just the salary.

kelloggs36

If he has always had these benefits in kind then you will be onto a loser if you go for a departure BUT if he only did it AFTER getting his CSA assessment then you have a much stronger case for claiming that he diverted his income.

marksoton

Cozworth806 wrote: »

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

In which case it would not be intended diversion !

The decision referred to was about a director of a company who chose the car, an £80,000 one at that. Hardly a scenario that would be apply to the masses.

marksoton

dimbo61 wrote: »

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!

Company car and health care should ( in theory ) not be included in the new CMEC assessment as the tax applied to them is collected via a persons personal tax allowance.

The fact a persons pension payments are not subject to tax but will be for the CMEC calculation is a disgrace.

ashington10

gross income scheme (CS3 perhaps) coming you way 2011. It's timetabled for June but they'll have to get their skates on to meet that.

marksoton

Stoopid wrote: »

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

In which case he is defrauding the taxman. If you take a company car you pay the associated tax.

Stoopid

marksoton wrote: »

In which case he is defrauding the taxman. If you take a company car you pay the associated tax.

No he isn't defrauding the taxman.
He declares his benefits - including the company car.
He pays tax on all these benefits,
CSA ignore the value of the benefits, but then exclude the extra tax he has paid on them - hence as I have said, he pays less child maintenance than a NRP who didn't get any of his benefits.
He is not defrauding the Tax man, the CSA just chose to ignore all the income declared that the taxman and courts already know about:cool:

Stoopid

For those of you who are struggling with the concept of Tax.
Hypothetically -( I haven't got the will power to sit and work it out exactly, but this should illustrate the point)
NRP1
Salary = £20,000
Tax, Ni & Sup = £5000
Net Income for CSA purposes = £15,000
NRP2
Salary = £20,000
Benefits in kind = £15,000
Tax, Ni & Sup = £10,000
Net Salary for CSA purposes = £10,000

So NRP2 who gets all the perks will pay less maintenance than NRP1 who has to pay for his own car etc.
So all you NRP who fall into NRP1 category - just remember the flash geezer who gets all the extra perks is paying less than you !!!! HE is not fiddling anything, since apparently that is the way the CSA want the system to work.

LizzieS_2

I take it there are 2 points to this:
1) The car is deemed essential expenditure
2) Even though the car is ignored, the tax paid on it reduces the taxable income further.

marksoton

Stoopid wrote: »

No he isn't defrauding the taxman.
He declares his benefits - including the company car.
He pays tax on all these benefits,
CSA ignore the value of the benefits, but then exclude the extra tax he has paid on them - hence as I have said, he pays less child maintenance than a NRP who didn't get any of his benefits.
He is not defrauding the Tax man, the CSA just chose to ignore all the income declared that the taxman and courts already know about:cool:

So you want 15% of the value of a company car ?

It's not an asset to him he does not own it.