Please read if dealing with a self-employed NRP!

clearingout

Hello,
I am engaged in an interesting 'conversation' with my MP over the CSA charging proposals which has shifted somewhat to the issue of the non-compliant NRP who is self employed.

My MP feels that 'complex cases' are very much in the minority. Whilst I am inclined to agree with him in the big scheme of things, I have argued the point that our children represent some of the most vulnerable in relationship breakdown given the complete withdrawl of financial support which many PWC seem to experience when their NRP is self employed - I have explained, for example, that my eldest child went from being in a private school to being eligible for free school meals in the space of a term.

What I'm after from you lovely people today is just a few words on this thread which shows that you are a PWC who receives no child maintenance OR has a very low assessment based on a low income the NRP has been able to manipulate into his/her accounts OR your NRP works cash in hand some/all of the time and you receive nothing/very little as a result. I don't need a full story, but some details of the drop in your children's lifestyle vs. the lifestyle you see your NRP now living (recognising of course that he/she may well have a well paid or wealthy new partner in tow) would be very helpful. I am interested to see how many people we can 'collect' by the time my MP responds to the latest letter to show him that whilst we are a minority, our situations are pretty dire and need to be looked at in some detail if a solution is to be found.

If you would prefer not to post, please PM me. My MP has engaged with me and on the surface at least, has recognised the problem and it would be a shame to waste the opportunity to get the issue across to them. Thanks!

Sensemaya

Maybe your MP needs to send an open letter to ALL MPs to see just how many 'minority' complex cases they have on their books.

Minority indeed. Humbug!

kelloggs36

I had a non-compliant NRP who was able to convince the tax office that he earned about 9.5k as a builder, which the CSA used to get a NIL assessment. I had to go to great lengths to prove that he had a lifestyle which was inconsistent with this declared income, and was one of the lucky ones able to prove this - most lifestyle cases are rejected for lack of evidence as it is hard to come by when you are no longer living with the person. Self employed are notorious within the CSA for getting away with very low assessments and they are hard to pin down for court action as many just ignore it all until the last minute. Your MP is very naive to suggest that they are a minority - I'm afraid that the CSA staff would say otherwise - self-employed are the ones who get away with the most.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

I think that self-employed cases account for approximately 10% of all cases, if my own experiences are accurate.

There doesn't seem to be an accurate way of dealing with self-employed non-resident parents. Currently the CSA will look at the last tax return (providing that is no older than 2 years) - this is patently different from assessments of employed NRPs where the CSA will look at the last two months' wage slips.

I've also seen a few cases where the PWC has been receiving a payment from the NRP, but then they come to the CSA, and end up getting less due to assessments using tax returns...one could maybe argue that some PWCs have known that the NRP had been submitting fraudulent tax returns for years, and benefitting from this tax evasion previously.

jungle_jane

if both sides of the coin are interesting to you...my OH is a self employed NRP whose income has dived dramatically the past two years as he works in the building trade and that has really suffered in the past few years. He currently earns zero and has done for months. He still pays the same amount as he did for the past 4 years though based on the time of divorce when he was on £30,000 - my income subsidises the payments. Had this not been the case (say for example he was single) he would have taken any job under the sun to enable him to meet those payments.

Being self employed is no excuse for not paying. That said however i doubt he would be happy to for stuff like private schooling - if this was the case, we would expect sacrifice to be made by everyone involved and something like this we would view to be a luxury.

Good luck with getting support, OP - i feel so sorry for the kids who inevitably suffer the most.

Sensemaya

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I think that self-employed cases account for approximately 10% of all cases, if my own experiences are accurate.

There doesn't seem to be an accurate way of dealing with self-employed non-resident parents. Currently the CSA will look at the last tax return (providing that is no older than 2 years) - this is patently different from assessments of employed NRPs where the CSA will look at the last two months' wage slips.

I've also seen a few cases where the PWC has been receiving a payment from the NRP, but then they come to the CSA, and end up getting less due to assessments using tax returns...one could maybe argue that some PWCs have known that the NRP had been submitting fraudulent tax returns for years, and benefitting from this tax evasion previously.

I've also been in the position of the NRP paying £350 per month for his two children from his previous marriage via court and,at the same time, being awarded 'the fiver' per week for my child via CSA.

How fair was that?

It still annoys me years later.

StressingSal

clearingout wrote: »

Hello,
I am engaged in an interesting 'conversation' with my MP over the CSA charging proposals which has shifted somewhat to the issue of the non-compliant NRP who is self employed.

My MP feels that 'complex cases' are very much in the minority. Whilst I am inclined to agree with him in the big scheme of things, I have argued the point that our children represent some of the most vulnerable in relationship breakdown given the complete withdrawl of financial support which many PWC seem to experience when their NRP is self employed - I have explained, for example, that my eldest child went from being in a private school to being eligible for free school meals in the space of a term.

What I'm after from you lovely people today is just a few words on this thread which shows that you are a PWC who receives no child maintenance OR has a very low assessment based on a low income the NRP has been able to manipulate into his/her accounts OR your NRP works cash in hand some/all of the time and you receive nothing/very little as a result. I don't need a full story, but some details of the drop in your children's lifestyle vs. the lifestyle you see your NRP now living (recognising of course that he/she may well have a well paid or wealthy new partner in tow) would be very helpful. I am interested to see how many people we can 'collect' by the time my MP responds to the latest letter to show him that whilst we are a minority, our situations are pretty dire and need to be looked at in some detail if a solution is to be found.

If you would prefer not to post, please PM me. My MP has engaged with me and on the surface at least, has recognised the problem and it would be a shame to waste the opportunity to get the issue across to them. Thanks!

My ex-husband has always been self employed and has a very successful business, employing 4 people full time, his second wife doesn't need to work. He has just produced accounts which show that he earns around £20,000 a year. I've just sent the CSA 30 pages of evidence which shows his lifestyle is completely inconsistent with the income he states. In addition in April the CSA found a note on their files from 2008 when he notified them of a change in his circumstances (another child) but he didn't send them the required information and they didn't chase it. Now they finally have the info they've backdated the assessment to 2008 and tell me I've been overpaid by £11,580! After being forced out of our home when he first moved in with his current wife and refused to contribute towards the mortgage on our house I'm now, faced with maintenance being reduced to the minimum of £6.50 a week, having to look to uproot my youngest during her GCSEs and move to a cheaper area. Meanwhile they watch their father's second wife spending money like there's no tomorrow.

I just don't understand how the CSA can work on a set of 'accounts' which could have been produced by anyone. There seems to be no common sense used.

missbunbury

To be honest, I think the "problem" of self-employed NRPs getting low CSA assessments is simply a side-effect of a larger problem, which is that HMRC appear to be happy to accept any old lies on a self-assessment tax return. I can't understand how a self-employed person can be allowed to declare extremely low profits year after year, and enjoy all the tax credits and other benefits that come as a result. It's plain to me that there is fraud on a massive scale which is ignored by HMRC because the individual amounts involved are low enough that they don't see it as worth investigating.

I'm not having a go at all self-employed people, I can totally understand that for the first couple of years a business is likely to run at a minimal profit level. However, when it's ten years down the line and someone is still saying they aren't making a profit, I find it unreasonable for them to still expect the taxpayer to prop up their failing business - if you truly aren't making money, then maybe it's time to try something else? Of course, a fair few of them are simply operating cash-in-hand and laughing all the way to the bank.

So if HMRC are happy to accept that someone has no income, how are the CSA meant to counter that? You can't have one government department disregarding the conclusions of another government department. So, the onus shifts to the PWC to prove what they may well know is a case of under-declared income, but how many can do that?

PreludeForTimeFeelers

missbunbury wrote: »

To be honest, I think the "problem" of self-employed NRPs getting low CSA assessments is simply a side-effect of a larger problem, which is that HMRC appear to be happy to accept any old lies on a self-assessment tax return. I can't understand how a self-employed person can be allowed to declare extremely low profits year after year, and enjoy all the tax credits and other benefits that come as a result. It's plain to me that there is fraud on a massive scale which is ignored by HMRC because the individual amounts involved are low enough that they don't see it as worth investigating.

I'm not having a go at all self-employed people, I can totally understand that for the first couple of years a business is likely to run at a minimal profit level. However, when it's ten years down the line and someone is still saying they aren't making a profit, I find it unreasonable for them to still expect the taxpayer to prop up their failing business - if you truly aren't making money, then maybe it's time to try something else? Of course, a fair few of them are simply operating cash-in-hand and laughing all the way to the bank.

So if HMRC are happy to accept that someone has no income, how are the CSA meant to counter that? You can't have one government department disregarding the conclusions of another government department. So, the onus shifts to the PWC to prove what they may well know is a case of under-declared income, but how many can do that?

I've spoken to a forensic accountant for HMRC, who told me that approx 1% of tax returns are checked...the other 99% are accepted without actually being looked at.

Tax Evasion is pretty shocking in this country, but Inland Revenue have bigger fish to fry, it's the big corporations that should really be investigated.

If the CSA use an NRP's tax return, and the PWC then reports the NRP for tax evasion, even an HMRC investigation won't change the return viewable by the CSA.

Sensemaya

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

I've spoken to a forensic accountant for HMRC, who told me that approx 1% of tax returns are checked...the other 99% are accepted without actually being looked at.

Tax Evasion is pretty shocking in this country, but Inland Revenue have bigger fish to fry, it's the big corporations that should really be investigated.

If the CSA use an NRP's tax return, and the PWC then reports the NRP for tax evasion, even an HMRC investigation won't change the return viewable by the CSA. Surely not if the investigation is proved successful?

I remember a forensic accountant being present in one of the tribunals we both attended around about the time he was paying a fiver to me per week and £350 per month via court for his other two kids.

He has always been slow to submit his latest accounts. However the outcome did result in a more favourable assessment to me. Can't recall the details off hand.

I was also investigated by the IR a few years ago...full blown,not aspect,and I'm certainly not a big fish by any means.So they do go for the little man.

The inspector told me in a roundabout way it was malicious.IR must have wasted lots of their time and taxpayers money as it was dropped.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Sensemaya wrote: »

Surely not if the investigation is proved successful?

Even if HMRC prove that his return was incorrect/inaccurate, and then correct it, the information the CSA get back is what he submits, so will still be the old information.

Utterly flabbergasting, I know.