CSA and Benefits in kind

marksoton

Stoopid wrote: »

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.

I take it you are referring to me so i will respond. It is you who does not understand the way tax and a P11D works. A company car is for work purposes, the fact you don't get one is tough. If it bothers you that much find a job that offers one. The tax that is paid on a company car is not done at 20% ( or 40% if you are a higher rate payer ) it is a proportion of the value of the car and numerous other factors. So no it's not a great way to reduce your CM liability.

There are avenues open to you if you think your ex is abusing the system, use them.

Stoopid

marksoton wrote: »

I take it you are referring to me so i will respond. It is you who does not understand the way tax and a P11D works. A company car is for work purposes.......
There are avenues open to you if you think your ex is abusing the system, use them.

I nearly had a heart attack.
I thought you were my ex reading this thread :eek:
If you mean my comment re "not understanding tax", no, I didn't mean you. That is why I deliberately made 2 seperate posts, because the second post was not aimed at you - sorry if you took it that way.
There have been several posters on here, and the CSA themselves who take the line. HE has declared it, therefore it has already been counted. I was trying to demonstrate the point with some figures. Obviously I have not done it well :cool:

In the example I said Benefits in kind = £15,000.
This is not the value of the car - which could actually be a car valued at say £50,000.

The Rev and Customs add up the yearly financial benefit of him having all these extra perks. He could be given a car, free housing, shares etc.
The Rev and Custom work out a value of their yearly benefit to him. i,e if his employer went out to get a £50,000 car for him as a perk how much would they spend a year.
Could I please stress yet again these are not essential expenditure - just like you all seem to recognise in the earlier factual case that the £80,000 car was not an essential expenditure.

marksoton, a company car does not have to be for work purposes. Can you explain why anyone would need an £80,000 company car just to get to work ?
I believe that the current rules ignore how many business miles you do, so you can get given a company car and just use it at weekends and to go to the football matches. This is why it is classed as a perk of the job.

Whatever the specifics of the CSA rules re, he chose it to avoid CM or he didn't, does anyone think that anyone being given an £80,000 car is essential to his job ?

Of course it is not his asset. Of course I do not want a share of his assets.
But he financially benefits from being given this asset by his employer.

In the example I gave I tried to point out NRP2 is given a car and all the expenses associated with that car (every drop of petrol put into the car) for Free
He might also be given free housing - so have no mortgage, utilities etc to pay. He gets given these for FREE.

NRP1 has to sort his own car out, and pay his own mortgage and bills out of his NET £15,000 residual income. Plus pay higher CM payments than NRP2

These could be 2 NRPs working in the same office, living in the same area. Travelling the same distance to and from work, with the same number of children to support.
NRP2 would normally be the 'boss' who gets the perks - this is how the system works

LizzieS -
1)No, the car is not deemed essential expenditure by NR2, his employer or the Rev and Customs department. It is no more essential than it would be for NRP1. He is not a sales rep who needs a car to travel the country, his is not a plumber who needs a van for his tools and to get to customers.
2) Yes the CM would be reduced by the tax etc. He would be taxed on his salary and his benefits through his payslip, by his tax code ( as has been pointed out by others).
So the CSA take his pay slips, see salary = £20,000, Tax, NI, Sup = £10,000.
Job done

marksoton

Stoopid wrote: »

I


In the example I said Benefits in kind = £15,000.
This is not the value of the car - which could actually be a car valued at say £50,000.

The Rev and Customs add up the yearly financial benefit of him having all these extra perks. He could be given a car, free housing, shares etc.Anyone of which could be considered at a departure.
The Rev and Custom work out a value of their yearly benefit to him. i,e if his employer went out to get a £50,000 car for him as a perk how much would they spend a year.
Could I please stress yet again these are not essential expenditure - just like you all seem to recognise in the earlier factual case that the £80,000 car was not an essential expenditure. You have answered your own question as to what to do next

marksoton, a company car does not have to be for work purposes. Can you explain why anyone would need an £80,000 company car just to get to work ? They would not, but why should they be required to drive a bottom of the range car either ?
I believe that the current rules ignore how many business miles you do, so you can get given a company car and just use it at weekends and to go to the football matches. This is why it is classed as a perk of the job. To be honest is there any part of an NRP's life that you consider to be out of bounds ?!

Whatever the specifics of the CSA rules re, he chose it to avoid CM or he didn't, does anyone think that anyone being given an £80,000 car is essential to his job ?

Of course it is not his asset. Of course I do not want a share of his assets.
But he financially benefits from being given this asset by his employer.

In the example I gave I tried to point out NRP2 is given a car and all the expenses associated with that car (every drop of petrol put into the car) for Free It's not free, how many times !
He might also be given free housing - so have no mortgage, utilities etc to pay. He gets given these for FREE.

NRP1 has to sort his own car out, and pay his own mortgage and bills out of his NET £15,000 residual income. Plus pay higher CM payments than NRP2

These could be 2 NRPs working in the same office, living in the same area. Travelling the same distance to and from work, with the same number of children to support.
NRP2 would normally be the 'boss' who gets the perks - this is how the system works

If your case is as strong as you make out then use the procedures others have.You say his liability would double without these " perks ", sounds pretty compelling to me.

Stoopid

marksoton wrote: »

If your case is as strong as you make out then use the procedures others have.You say his liability would double without these " perks ", sounds pretty compelling to me.

But if CSA rules state benefits are not included, as kelloggs66 said in post 7, I have no case.
It doesn't matter if his benefits are an £8,000 astra or an £80,000 BMW, if he gets a christmas bonus of a food hamper, or half a million pounds worth of government gilts. If it is not cash, and not going though his payslip, they will ignore it, even if R&C know about it, and csa have the paperwork to prove it.

ashington10 says csa3 does not come in until 2011, if then, so having his maintenance payments calculated based on his true income cannot happen until then - which doesn't help me for the next 2 and a half years.
I have already been fighting the csa over this for years - they have still not shown me any rules - and I cannot afford to wait for 2011, so ( as I said in post8) the house will have to be sold.

marksoton
I do not understand your hostility to me.
I realise you may have issues with PWC in general. I suppose most 'clients' of the csa have some anger and bitterness.
I have no interest in 99% of my ex's life. Only in how his life affects our children.
It is not an issue of what is in or out of bounds, just what affect me and the children.

I don't care if he is sleeping with the entire second team of his favorite football team, or even if the officials are in there as well. What I do care about is when he cancels seeing his children because he has "made plans".

I don't care about him picking out the colour and interior of his latest company car, but I care about the fact I buy second-hand clothes for my kids from car boot sales and ebay.

I don't care where and when he goes on his foreign holidays, what I do care about is that he never takes any of his children with him.

I don't care if he earns £50,000 or £500,000 a year, what I do care about is the fact I am up every night until the early hours ( check out the majority of my posting times) worrying how to afford the things my kids want/need, and wondering if my clapped out old banger will pass its mot. And if it doesn't how I can afford to get them to school, and me to work without a car.

I don't care if I never see my ex again, but am a sad enough person not to actually wish him any harm because I don't want my children to not have a father.

If that makes me a money-grabbing, blood-sucking PWC in your eyes ( and his) tough.
I put my ex first for far too long, now my children comes first.

Something my ex has a problem with.
I am fighting for CHILD maintenance, NOT spousal maintenance. He refused to pay me a penny, even though apparently he legally should have.
I only got involved with the csa because he was threatening to stop ALL cm paymants - or was that another area of his life I should have considered out of bounds

LizzieS_2

Stoopid, as angry as you are over this, the amount he is paying may be sufficient for half your child(ren)s costs even if it is a smaller proportion of his real income.

How many does he pay for and roughly how much?

marksoton

Stoopid wrote: »

But if CSA rules state benefits are not included, as kelloggs66 said in post 7, I have no case.
It doesn't matter if his benefits are an £8,000 astra or an £80,000 BMW, if he gets a christmas bonus of a food hamper, or half a million pounds worth of government gilts. If it is not cash, and not going though his payslip, they will ignore it, even if R&C know about it, and csa have the paperwork to prove it. You can appeal.

ashington10 says csa3 does not come in until 2011, if then, so having his maintenance payments calculated based on his true income cannot happen until then - which doesn't help me for the next 2 and a half years.
I have already been fighting the csa over this for years - they have still not shown me any rules - and I cannot afford to wait for 2011, so ( as I said in post8) the house will have to be sold. Don't bet you will get anywhere in 2011 on that front. Like i said even when the rules change to gross income it's possible P11D benefits will not be include.

marksoton
I do not understand your hostility to me. I have none whatsoever towards you
I realise you may have issues with PWC in general.Not at all, i actually often post in support of PWC's. I suppose most 'clients' of the csa have some anger and bitterness.
I have no interest in 99% of my ex's life. Only in how his life affects our children.
It is not an issue of what is in or out of bounds, just what affect me and the children. My point was how far do you want the CSA to go ? Giving the CSA yet more powers is not the answer.

I don't care if he is sleeping with the entire second team of his favorite football team, or even if the officials are in there as well. What I do care about is when he cancels seeing his children because he has "made plans".

I don't care about him picking out the colour and interior of his latest company car, but I care about the fact I buy second-hand clothes for my kids from car boot sales and ebay.

I don't care where and when he goes on his foreign holidays, what I do care about is that he never takes any of his children with him.

I don't care if he earns £50,000 or £500,000 a year, what I do care about is the fact I am up every night until the early hours ( check out the majority of my posting times) worrying how to afford the things my kids want/need, and wondering if my clapped out old banger will pass its mot. And if it doesn't how I can afford to get them to school, and me to work without a car.

I don't care if I never see my ex again, but am a sad enough person not to actually wish him any harm because I don't want my children to not have a father.

If that makes me a money-grabbing, blood-sucking PWC in your eyes ( and his) tough. Not in mine no.
I put my ex first for far too long, now my children comes first.

Something my ex has a problem with.
I am fighting for CHILD maintenance, NOT spousal maintenance. He refused to pay me a penny, even though apparently he legally should have.
I only got involved with the csa because he was threatening to stop ALL cm paymants - or was that another area of his life I should have considered out of bounds

In which case you have a non compliant NRP and i hope you get what your children deserve. But the changes you infer would in a lot of cases allow the CSA to take a disproportionate and completely wrong amount from a lot of NRP's.