Variation and Working/child tax credits

Kimitatsu

INAPPROPRIATE POSTS


Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: Sorry, your post had to be deleted as we had a couple of emails about it and site policy is to err on the side of caution (please see this rule).If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="%20abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]

Kimitatsu

Chaps

I am trying to be fair and leave this thread open as much as possible BUT if you resort to name calling then I will have to close it :think:

So.........play nice please

speedster

i'm confused???

what name calling?

speedster

surely not the way i refer to the ex??

the lovely contact blocking witch that she is!! :rotfl:

romanempire

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Chaps

I am trying to be fair and leave this thread open as much as possible BUT if you resort to name calling then I will have to close it :think:

So.........play nice please

It would be useful to know what you're referring to.

Soubrette

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!

IR35 pulls aside the corporate veil as do things like 'corporate manslaughter' so the legal precendents are already there for ignoring the corporate veil.

Also although the CSA may accept things - it may be worth taking the matter further and asking for a failed variation to go to a Tribunal (I at last have a date for mine).

There is legislation within the child support that states that when a person has control over the money that is paid to himself such as in the case of a one man band limited company, then the ltd company will be looked at.

Same as if the one man band earns money for the company but there are different share holders (diversion of income).

There is no doubt that the CSA has the powers to investigate these types of entity fully as well as look at all personal income - however it does not seem to have the expertise, manpower or will to do this.

So far at my Tribunal, the ex has had to provide the last 3 years of full accounts (he only has to publish the shortened version) as well as the last three years of all of his current/savings accounts, shares, ISAs and credit card accounts. He has also had to provide current earnings for his girlfriend (I assume to allocate costs of living as we are on CSA2). Although he played silly beggars for a few weeks - a sharply worded letter from the Tribunal clerk has forced him to provide everything requested, of which of course I get a copy.

As an aside - I did not claim any maintenance for 4 years from my ex, I thought I could trust him and that no matter how much he hated me, he would always love our children. He paid a couple of thousand out (for two children) in the first year and it got less and less until the last year he paid out only things like food when the children visited, he earns between £50,000 and £100,000pa. I have never restricted access nor denied our children the chance to phone him at any time they want. When I was the NRP and did not pay child maintenance, I put more than 20% of my net pay towards them (excess was put in a bank account).

For me, it's not a game I am playing with my ex, with either of us using the children or money as pawns - it's about trying to do the best by them. Sometimes making difficult decisions where no outcome gives a totally positive outcome - the hardest ones to try and figure out what to do for the best

Sou

speedster

still a very grey area and if the nrp is clued up and has covered all the bases, then the tribunal would fail.

i.e. not majority shareholder, legitimate expenses, employees. perhaps another company used solely for shuffling purposes.

it's also extremely easy to place money where it is hidden well away from prying eyes and then paying cash for a lot of stuff.

Soubrette

speedster wrote: »

still a very grey area and if the nrp is clued up and has covered all the bases, then the tribunal would fail.

i.e. not majority shareholder, legitimate expenses, employees. perhaps another company used solely for shuffling purposes.

it's also extremely easy to place money where it is hidden well away from prying eyes and then paying cash for a lot of stuff.

Only if you take cash jobs and don't issue receipts - which is..ahem...slightly dodgy:eek: As I've said before - I would not like to be breaking the law with a vindictive PWC around.

I have asked for a forensic accountant to be present at my Tribunal so any kind of shuffling etc will be picked up on.

I have also researched for some Tribunal precedents to take in with me and although I do not believe my ex will play the kind of games you describe, there is indeed precedents for allocating an income even when one is not apparent.

I'll let you know how I get on

Sou

CSA_Help

Soubrette wrote: »

IR35 pulls aside the corporate veil as do things like 'corporate manslaughter' so the legal precendents are already there for ignoring the corporate veil.

Also although the CSA may accept things - it may be worth taking the matter further and asking for a failed variation to go to a Tribunal (I at last have a date for mine).

There is legislation within the child support that states that when a person has control over the money that is paid to himself such as in the case of a one man band limited company, then the ltd company will be looked at.

Same as if the one man band earns money for the company but there are different share holders (diversion of income).

There is no doubt that the CSA has the powers to investigate these types of entity fully as well as look at all personal income - however it does not seem to have the expertise, manpower or will to do this.

So far at my Tribunal, the ex has had to provide the last 3 years of full accounts (he only has to publish the shortened version) as well as the last three years of all of his current/savings accounts, shares, ISAs and credit card accounts. He has also had to provide current earnings for his girlfriend (I assume to allocate costs of living as we are on CSA2). Although he played silly beggars for a few weeks - a sharply worded letter from the Tribunal clerk has forced him to provide everything requested, of which of course I get a copy.

As an aside - I did not claim any maintenance for 4 years from my ex, I thought I could trust him and that no matter how much he hated me, he would always love our children. He paid a couple of thousand out (for two children) in the first year and it got less and less until the last year he paid out only things like food when the children visited, he earns between £50,000 and £100,000pa. I have never restricted access nor denied our children the chance to phone him at any time they want. When I was the NRP and did not pay child maintenance, I put more than 20% of my net pay towards them (excess was put in a bank account).

For me, it's not a game I am playing with my ex, with either of us using the children or money as pawns - it's about trying to do the best by them. Sometimes making difficult decisions where no outcome gives a totally positive outcome - the hardest ones to try and figure out what to do for the best

Sou

Oh yes i remember my IR35 reveiw that the PWC must have instigated about the same time i was diverting income.IR35 was quite interesting the way they tried to manipulate evidence from previous customers of the Limited Company i was an employee off end off .
Not once did the director and majority shareholder get brought into any of the discussions or correspondance .Hence they were targetting me :rotfl:

I cleary won that one as well with their estimated £90k of unpaid tax and National insurance which in the end they actually gave me a refund of over £2000 due to an overpayment of my tax & NI

speedster

Soubrette wrote: »

Only if you take cash jobs and don't issue receipts - which is..ahem...slightly dodgy:eek: As I've said before - I would not like to be breaking the law with a vindictive PWC around.

I have asked for a forensic accountant to be present at my Tribunal so any kind of shuffling etc will be picked up on.

I have also researched for some Tribunal precedents to take in with me and although I do not believe my ex will play the kind of games you describe, there is indeed precedents for allocating an income even when one is not apparent.

I'll let you know how I get on

Sou

it sounds as if your nrp isn't exactly clues up, so you should do fine.

my point is that it is easy to hide money. if you mysteriously have £500 odd a week "appearing" in your bank account then you're gonna get stuffed. if you take the cash directly to tesco and buy your shopping, you've immediately lost £100 of that £500. then fill up the motor, there's £50 minimum, etc, etc.

the thing with company exenses is that any half decent accountant will legitimately get these as high as possible which means the csa tribunal cant take those into account for starters, dividends are a sticking point, but again, a half decent accountant would get these as low as poss. take out employess wages say x3, travelling expenses, tools, equipment, materials,etc, etc, etc and legally there is little left of the original £500 that needed to be shuffled around.

and don't get me started on second and third companys!

diversion and deprivation of income are incredibly hard to prove if the nrp has half a brain.

fortunately for you, it seems yours isn't exactly clued up as they appear to have his card marked.