Variation and Working/child tax credits

Loopy_Girl

I'm sitting here shaking my head and it's not the first time I have sadly read a story like yours on here and I just can't grasp it.

These women (wimmin) make me sick, they really do. You carry a baby inside you for 9 months, go through HOURS of pain and this little person comes into the world and then a few years or whatever down the line, he/she is used as a bargaining tool for money?:mad: They need to get a bloody grip.

I don't hate my NRP - how can I? He gave me the best thing to me in the world but I hate that I see in my daughter's eyes and hear in her voice that she is desperate to see him...and what can I tell her? She's been asking me for a while to write a letter to him asking if she can see him and I am stil unsure whether to do it as he may meet her out of curiosity and then never see her again and I don't know if that is worse than not seeing him at all. I have told her that she is more than welcome to knock on his door at 16 and ask the questions (hell, I'll drive her there!!):D

So he doesn't pay and he doesn't see and what makes it worse is that he already has 2 older kids so KNOWS what it's like to be a father.

So to these women that block contact or use their kid for money then I say shame on you cos there are plenty kids out there that would like to have a Dad in their life that gives a !!!!.

And it is these women that do tend to give us PWC a bad name and it annoys me....but then I am mature enough to relalise that not all NP's are like mine either and I would actually pray to god he is in the minority and not the majority.:mad:

I know how good men can be...my Dad fought for custody of me and brought me up - and look how that turned out!!!!! (joke!!):rotfl::rotfl:

Kimitatsu

romanempire wrote: »

Quite legitimate. If any 2 of the following 3 conditions are met a company can file abbreviated accounts:-

• annual turnover must be £5.6 million or less;
• the balance sheet total must be £2.8 million or less;
• the average number of employees must be 50 or fewer.

And for a lot of one-man-band micro businesses it wouldn't be hard to get it all on one page.

Thanks for that it does explain why it worked out like that.

Can the CSA ask for a more detailed account though because otherwise he could be telling them anything and they would just accept it :eek:

speedster

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Thing is speedster they DO have HMRC accountants working for them (on secondment apparently but they see m to be there for the duration) so if I would you I would put your request in writing to them and then let them tell you what it is they want! Otherwise you could send them anything which is what my ex did. They asked for his accounts - he wrote them out a single sheet income, expenses, net profit, amazingly the income and expenses almost cancelled each other out and they accepted it - no questions :eek::eek:

quite feasible i'm afraid.

ie. an nrp is self employed and sets up a new business. he'll incur set up costs, vehicle, tools, advertising. you name it, it's deductable.

also, at the end of year, when figures become official, the csa only have to make an inter departmental phone call and get the exact figures and hit him with a massive arrears bill.

then there's ltd's, under corporate law, they don't have to disclose ANYTHING to the csa other than paye details. basic details are available from companies house. corporate law isn't one of the laws the csa can ignore because it protects too many powerful people in this country.

romanempire

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Can the CSA ask for a more detailed account though because otherwise he could be telling them anything and they would just accept it :eek:

I'm not sure. Remember that a limited company is legally a 'moral person' and has an existence entirely separate from your ex. Its internal affairs are entirely its business and so long as its meeting its obligations under the law nobody has the power to pull aside the 'corporate veil'.

As for "could be telling them anything and they would just accept it" isn't that what they do with PWC's!

Found_true_love

romanempire wrote: »

As for "could be telling them anything and they would just accept it" isn't that what they do with PWC's!

Heh heh heh

And the law courts accept what wimmin tell them hook line and sinker

speedster

romanempire wrote: »

I'm not sure. Remember that a limited company is legally a 'moral person' and has an existence entirely separate from your ex. Its internal affairs are entirely its business and so long as its meeting its obligations under the law nobody has the power to pull aside the 'corporate veil'.

As for "could be telling them anything and they would just accept it" isn't that what they do with PWC's!

indeed. the corporate veil is very sturdy. the csa have kind of breached it on a couple of occasions under the deprivation of income rule, but that's only because the nrp tripped himself up.

and the nrp has to be the majority shareholder for the csa to have any chance of doing anything.

if you have 2 ltd companies not in your name, it REALLY stumps them! :rolleyes:

romanempire

And the important thing is to maintain appearances consistent with reported income. No flash cars, etc. Don't give the contact-blocking hostage-taker any ammunition for greater CSA-assisted ransom demands.:rolleyes:

speedster

romanempire wrote: »

And the important thing is to maintain appearances consistent with reported income. No flash cars, etc. Don't give the contact-blocking hostage-taker any ammunition for greater CSA-assisted ransom demands.:rolleyes:

oh yes, indeed! :beer:

still, mine copped the right hump when the new company van appeared on the driveway, comlplete with sign writing! :rolleyes:

romanempire

Can't think why. After all its a van not a car. And a company must make whatever expenditure it considers necessary for the profitable running of the company. :beer:

Its a pity my company has had to lay me off and I've had to claim JSA and HB for the first time in 15 years. Ah well, maybe when things pick up it might be able to afford some decent kit for its minimum wage employees.

Maybe when the director is relieved of the stress of reduced contact with his beloved son he'll be able to concentrate more fully on building his business up to more profitable levels.

Cracks me up the assertion that maintenance is not connected with contact. I was looking at a spreadsheet that does CSA2 calcs and the CSA give PWCs a large financial incentive to reduce contact. So it might not be connected in law but it is connected in fact.

pd001

romanempire wrote: »

Can't think why. After all its a van not a car. And a company must make whatever expenditure it considers necessary for the profitable running of the company. :beer:

Its a pity my company has had to lay me off and I've had to claim JSA and HB for the first time in 15 years. Ah well, maybe when things pick up it might be able to afford some decent kit for its minimum wage employees.

Maybe when the director is relieved of the stress of reduced contact with his beloved son he'll be able to concentrate more fully on building his business up to more profitable levels.

Cracks me up the assertion that maintenance is not connected with contact. I was looking at a spreadsheet that does CSA2 calcs and the CSA give PWCs a large financial incentive to reduce contact. So it might not be connected in law but it is connected in fact.

Good point, well made!