How do I prove he is depriving himself of income?

HappyMJ

jetta_wales wrote: »

Do you still get the £68 per week? (nearly £300 a month) Do you really think you NEED more than that?

I don't think that reponse is necessary. If you only ask for what is NEEDED then £5 a week is all that is NEEDED. State benefits cover eveything else. The PWC sees the NRP living a lifestyle which is way beyond his means. CSA is supposed to provide a child with a lifestyle somewhere in between both parents earning capacity.

hop25scotch

This is an interesting point.

Is the NRP deliverately depriving himself of income to avoid paying child support?

By placing himself as an employee while having apparent control of the company itself, he enabled himself to use the company as a shield against CSA investigators. He commands what the payroll manager tell the CSA whenever they make enquiries, he only lets the CSA see what he wants them to see. He clearly knows that holdays property and cars are not income, nor can they be converted into income by the CSA when they arent even his. So the point is also on whether the enjoyment of these items can be inferred to be income?

Tribunal is the way to go.

My feeling is bring him in for interview, but thats already tried, trying to 'trip' him up will probably wont work.

jetta_wales

If he is declaring he is on £15k but paying £68 pounds a week then that doesn't't add up it's about twice what he would be calculated to have to pay on that wage. If he is still paying that much and is earning much more then it sounds like he's paying an amount he thinks is fair and plenty enough (certainly not the minimum he can get away with if he's saying he earns £15k a year) and has this set up financially to protect himself from her trying to demand even more.

The figures don't match up so on that assumption I can't blame him to be honest.

mrsspendalot

clearingout wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the point, though, is it? that she should be grateful for what she gets, particularly as some of us get nothing (*holds hands up*!!).

I don't buy the 'you should be grateful for what you get' if what you get isn't a fair amount based on the NRP's income argument.

I was looking at it from the point of view that it is notoriously difficult to get assessments from self employed NRPs, full stop. If the NRP is self employed and paying £68 a week, it's not like he's avoiding his payment responsibility. If he is declaring income of £15k, £68 a week seems a high payment to be honest in those declared circumstances, so how isn't it a fair assessment as it stands?

If the OP has concrete proof he is earning and not declaring, then go for it, but it seems on the surface at least that his girlfriend is actually contributing a lot financially to the relationship and would appear to have a greater earnings potential. This is never going to change if it is all legal and above board with the tax man.

I just think that if the CSA have looked under every stone and found nothing illegal or untoward going on, there is the possibility that there is nothing untoward going on

What if it goes to a tribunal, he manages to perfectly legally hide more income through a clever accountant, and the £68 a week assessment reduces down as a result? There is always that chance too.

hop25scotch

Given the date 2002 then its CS1. Income £15,000, £68 CM then thats about 30% meaning there are 2 QCs.

hop25scotch

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I was looking at it from the point of view that it is notoriously difficult to get assessments from self employed NRPs,

The OP says the NRP has a DEO, which indicates he is employed.

HappyMJ

hop25scotch wrote: »

The OP says the NRP has a DEO, which indicates he is employed.

Employed by a limited company that is under his partners control. Technically it's employment but we all know it's disguised self employment.

jetta_wales

mrsspendalot wrote: »

I was looking at it from the point of view that it is notoriously difficult to get assessments from self employed NRPs, full stop. If the NRP is self employed and paying £68 a week, it's not like he's avoiding his payment responsibility. If he is declaring income of £15k, £68 a week seems a high payment to be honest in those declared circumstances, so how isn't it a fair assessment as it stands?

If the OP has concrete proof he is earning and not declaring, then go for it, but it seems on the surface at least that his girlfriend is actually contributing a lot financially to the relationship and would appear to have a greater earnings potential. This is never going to change if it is all legal and above board with the tax man.

I just think that if the CSA have looked under every stone and found nothing illegal or untoward going on, there is the possibility that there is nothing untoward going on

What if it goes to a tribunal, he manages to perfectly legally hide more income through a clever accountant, and the £68 a week assessment reduces down as a result? There is always that chance too.

Indeed if he can legally prove an income of only £15k and thinks you just greedy for trying to get more then you couldend up with the CSA amount of about £48 a week less if it's 1 child and even less if he has the child/children for 1 or more nights per week.

mrsspendalot

SarahT1980 wrote: »

My question is why is he allowed to get away with declaring his income at £15k when other building site foremen earns 50? His lifestyle is not consistent

It depends whether he is earning £15k legitimately or only declaring £15k earnings. If you think he is not declaring all his earnings, is it worth reporting him to HMRC and let them look into things? They probably have more power to look at that than the CSA. When you say other building site foremen earn 50k, is that others working for the same company? If so, then that is something which could prove useful.

Lifestyle inconsistent isn't impossible to prove, but with a wealthy girlfriend with good earnings potential, I would imagine that it would be very very hard to prove in this case. My husband is a student and as such has no income, but I work. His lifestyle is 'inconsistent' with someone having no income, but it's not because he is doing anything wrong - it's because I work and earn the money at the moment. Ih his ex wife suddenly put in a claim on those grounds, they would find nothing untoward. Sometimes things on the surface appear differently to what they actually are underneath.:o

mrsspendalot

hop25scotch wrote: »

The OP says the NRP has a DEO, which indicates he is employed.

HappyMJ wrote: »

Employed by a limited company that is under his partners control. Technically it's employment but we all know it's disguised self employment.

Sorry, I seem to have missed that and assumed he was self employed

Note to self: read more carefully!