The CSA and Dividends – how does it work?

Fission

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

Something not quite right there.

Its quite correct.

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

The OP is borrowing to further his career, that is a fundamental right of everyone living in Britain.

Of course it is. But it still isn't a housing cost. Its a business loan which is secured on a house.

Light_Speed_Cruiser wrote: »

If the CSA has other ideas then the NRP will go and do it under someone elses jurisdiction. The result?
NRP - won
the taxman - nil
CSA - nil.
I dont think the CSA would be so stupid.

The law is clear on what a housing cost is and it doesn't mean money borrowed to buy shares in a business. That's the old rules where housing costs are allowed in the formula. In the new rules, there are no housing costs allowed anyway.

F

speedster

kelloggs36 wrote: »

the forms that you complete asks the questions about your income, including dividends, so you are legally required to tell them about them when you are asked about your income. They will look at the last year's dividends and divide them over 52 weeks to get a weekly income figure.

wrong.

they can only ask for PAYE details as he is only a director and NOT the majority shareholder.

the OP is under NO obligation to furnish the chimps with any other details than his PAYE income.

might i suggest you brush up on a bit of corporate law instead of spouting CSA propaganda at the poster.

Fission

speedster wrote: »

wrong. they can only ask for PAYE details as he is only a director and NOT the majority shareholder.

The CSA can ask for whatever information it needs. It has the same information seeking powers as the revenue. Refusal to provide the information is an offence. If the majority shareholder refuses to give the information that's an offence by the majority shareholder.

speedster wrote: »

the OP is under NO obligation to furnish the chimps with any other details than his PAYE income. might i suggest you brush up on a bit of corporate law instead of spouting CSA propaganda at the poster.

Nothing to do with corporate law. It's child support law. If the case is "old" rules with housing costs taken into account, dividends are taken into account too. He must declare any he has received.

CornishBloke29

Fission wrote: »

In the new rules, there are no housing
F

The OP says its old rules, so housing costs are allowed.

The OP says he mortgaged the property so it is not a biz loan. Its a mortgage.

Allowed.

CornishBloke29

speedster wrote: »

wrong.

they can only ask for PAYE details as he is only a director and NOT the majority shareholder.

the OP is under NO obligation to furnish the chimps with any other details than his PAYE income.

I seem to remember the same, its asks about payslips and bank statements,

Rather odd since the CSA is capable of getting that information behind the NRP's back.

This policy if anything encourages NRPs to protect income by putting it out of reach or wrapping it into a company.

Fission

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

The OP says its old rules, so housing costs are allowed.

If thats what he said, its true that housing costs are allowed.

CornishBloke29 wrote: »

The OP says he mortgaged the property so it is not a biz loan. Its a mortgage.

Allowed.

That isn't the whole story, but I don't want to get into an argument with you about it. Mortgages are allowed, but only for purchase or some sorts of improvement. Not a mortgage taken out for a purpose like buying shares or a car or a holiday. As it is told here, claiming that the money had been spent on property improvements would be untrue, risking prosecution for fraud which isn't good for a company director. The father's housing costs would be disclosed to the mother in her correspondence. She'd surely soon smell a rat if the housing costs had gone up by the sort of amount mentioned. Wouldn't you? The law about mortgages and child support doesn't allow loans not taken out for housing purposes. As well as that there are limits to the amount of housing costs that can be allowed which mean that the weekly costs cannot be more than half of weekly income.

k-hkr

It is 'old' rules so why do you even have to notify them of a change in circumstance as you are not (or were not? clarification needed re. cemec new rules) obligated to do so? They are supposed to do 'regular reviews' , supposedly 2 yearly, and you would receive the assessment forms for this. Then you are obligated to tell them what they ask for. I have asked this question with regards to being obligated to tell them of COC elsewhere as it is a new CMEC rule but I am not sure when it comes into force.

speedster

missing the point. corporate law was set up to protect the big-wigs and those that fund the party coffers etc.

so, say the NRP is a director of a LTD, by what you're saying, even if it was virgin media ltd for example. i'm sure sir richard would be passing on details of dividend payments to the bloody csa.

speedster

Fission wrote: »

The CSA can ask for whatever information it needs. It has the same information seeking powers as the revenue. Refusal to provide the information is an offence. If the majority shareholder refuses to give the information that's an offence by the majority shareholder.



Nothing to do with corporate law. It's child support law. If the case is "old" rules with housing costs taken into account, dividends are taken into account too. He must declare any he has received.

missing the point. corporate law was set up to protect the big-wigs and those that fund the party coffers etc.

so, say the NRP is a director of a LTD, by what you're saying, even if it was virgin media ltd for example. i'm sure sir richard would be passing on details of dividend payments to the bloody csa.

Fission

speedster wrote: »

missing the point. corporate law was set up to protect the big-wigs and those that fund the party coffers etc. so, say the NRP is a director of a LTD, by what you're saying, even if it was virgin media ltd for example. i'm sure sir richard would be passing on details of dividend payments to the bloody csa.

It's not me that's missing the point. What Richard Branson would or wouldn't do is not the point. On old rules, dividends are taken into account and are asked about. Not revealing the truth is a criminal offence. Company directors can't afford a conviction for deception with a view to obtaining a financial advantage. It can disqualify them from being a director. As for Branson, very rich people rarely use the CSA because they can come to an arrangement.

On mortgages, BTW, this is on the internet.

Mr E Jacobs - Commissioner 1.9.03CA (Holman, Dyson and Brooke LJJ) - 10.11.04 - CCS/4994/2002
snip
47. If the purpose [of a loan or mortgage] did not relate to acquiring the home, the whole of the housing costs are ineligible for child support purposes under paragraph 4(1)(a). No further consideration is needed. For example, taking out a mortgage solely to raise a capital sum in order to set up a business or to pay a lump sum on divorce is not a purpose that is covered by paragraph 4(1)(a). It is, therefore, not an eligible housing cost.
snip