Tax on cm

mollys_mum

We heard/read somewhere, very soon the PWC will have to pay a small % of their cm soon, as like a tax/charge for using the CSA! When is this coming into effect? (If at all) And how much will it be?
Thanks

DX2

mollys_mum wrote: »

We heard/read somewhere, very soon the PWC will have to pay a small % of their cm soon, as like a tax/charge for using the CSA! When is this coming into effect? (If at all) And how much will it be?
Thanks

Starting from 2013, the government proposes charging:

• £100 as an upfront fee (or £50 for parents on benefit) for those who want to use the future CSA. Only “Victims of domestic violence” will be exempt (although there is no detail on how this will be proved or checked).
• An on-going charge of between 7% and 12% on any maintenance paid to parents who rely on the future CSA to collect their child maintenance, as well as an extra 15-20% charge added to the non-resident parent’s payment.

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content.aspx?CategoryID=574

mollys_mum

Thanks DX2. We heard about the charges for the PWC, didn't realise NRP's payments would go up aswell...

DX2

mollys_mum wrote: »

Thanks DX2. We heard about the charges for the PWC, didn't realise NRP's payments would go up aswell...

You aren't the only one, many are just assuming the PWC is getting charged.

pinkpig08

Hang on, if the NRP is charged an extra 20% and the PWC has to pay 12% of the new figure - doesn't that work out that it is actually the NRP paying the charge and paying the PWC extra? eg: original payment £200 per month. An increase of 20% would make that £240 per month. If the PWC has to pay 12% of that which would be £28.80, it would leave them with an actual maintenance payment of £211.20.

clearingout

DX2 wrote: »

You aren't the only one, many are just assuming the PWC is getting charged.

yep! it's going to come as a shock to some NRPs, I think. The motive is to make us move away from using the CSA but I can see all that is going to happen is thousands will agree not to use it, thousands will pay late, not at all and thousands will migrate back to the CSA, accepting that if they're ever going to get any money, they'll have to accept the charge. The only people I can see it benefitting are those NRPs who are with the CSA because they have a PWC who was trying very hard to squeeze every last penny and got a lower or equal assessment as a result.

I am still waiting a response from my MP on how this improves things for those of us with a self-employed NRP who don't file accounts or tax returns.

kingfisherblue

It seems unfair on those of us whose ex partners/husbands have previously been non- compliant and have had to use the CSA to get a DEO. My ex wouldn't pay anything for our three children as he had decided that I wouldn't spend it on the children - and even claimed in court that he gave the children money each week, equivilent to what he should be paying as CM :mad:

As it happens, the kids didn't get more than an occasional happy meal from him :rotfl: - never any money.

Due to his history of not contacting the CSA about changes in circumstances (including addresses and employment), and non-compliance when it came to paying, there is a DEO in place. From what is posted above, I will now be charged a percentage of that to receive it. If I choose to trust him with a private arrangement, it won't be long before he stops paying again, so that isn't an option.

Rebecca01

pinkpig08 wrote: »

Hang on, if the NRP is charged an extra 20% and the PWC has to pay 12% of the new figure - doesn't that work out that it is actually the NRP paying the charge and paying the PWC extra? eg: original payment £200 per month. An increase of 20% would make that £240 per month. If the PWC has to pay 12% of that which would be £28.80, it would leave them with an actual maintenance payment of £211.20.

I think it will be 20 percent for nrp , so on 200 the tax man would get the 40 pounds but I think ( hope) that the 200 maintenance will then be taxed again with the 12 percent , so pwc would get 176 pounds. So on a 200 a week maintenance payment the taxman would make 64 pounds.

jetta_wales

This is still early days though there's nothing for sly decided upon yet just proposals and many get changed greatly as we've seen with other issues.

clearingout

Or rather, the CSA gets £64 in admin fees. I guess what they're looking at is a way of making the CSA self-funding so the taxman doesn't have to pay it - which means the taxman is getting his money back, I guess, one way or another.

They are going to have to charge both the PWC and NRP otherwise it wouldn't be 'fair'. The CSA has no way of knowing if the case is with them because the NRP won't pay or the PWC is being difficult. I have queried with my MP why on earth those of us who have obviously non-compliant NRPs (and I'm talking about those who never answer the phone, send letters back as 'not at this address' and have to go to court for Liability Orders, Charging Orders etc. etc. ) are being made to pay and have suggested that in such situations, surely the costs of pursuing the NRP should come from them in full. My MP has been very patient and has really considered his responses but he is quiet on this matter - but I shall be chasing him for a response!

clearingout

jetta_wales wrote: »

This is still early days though there's nothing for sly decided upon yet just proposals and many get changed greatly as we've seen with other issues.

I think it's a step further along than being just proposals - my MP has written as if it's a sure thing and his correspondence with Maria Miller would show the same. My personal frustration is that I have no choice but to use the CSA as the courts have no jurdisdiction - I think if I'm going to have to pay, I'd like to choose how, thank you very much!