Please read if dealing with a self-employed NRP!

Kimitatsu

I too am an PWC who has an NRP who pays the minimum. He and his partner own two properties, she works full time as a teacher yet all of the shares in the company are in her name, interestingly the company was incorporated the day before the compliance team visited and it was done online.

The CSA tell me they know he is lying but their hands are tied, despite the fact he advertises deals on the likes of groupon etc, he tells them he is not working. He is marked throughout his case as being non compliant and every reassessment goes through to the criminal compliance team, but they have to ring him to tell him they are visiting!!

It rubbish really, and annoys me more than anything else........my time will come though

jjj1980

I am a PWC and in my case, the NRP is claiming JSA, well, when he can be bothered to turn up to sign on he is!! So my assessment is set at £5 per week. However, I have just provided them with some information regarding lifestyle inconsistent as he is running two separate mobile phones, turning up (when he can be bothered to anyway) to see our daughter wearing expensive clothing, going out drinking every weekend, all weekend, has told my solicitor via a recorded telephone call that due to his employment circumstances he doesn't qualify for legal aid and more. Somethings not quite adding up to being on JSA...:o

clearingout

thank you all for commenting and to those who have sent PMs. I will respond in the next few days to you. Any other people struggling with this issue? I would love to hear from you!

xnatalie81x

Yep my ex sells car parts on eBay and I have just found his new user Id (keeps changing it) which I will be phoning through to CSA tomorrow. He is registered unemployed

Sidekick_2

xnatalie81x wrote: »

Yep my ex sells car parts on eBay and I have just found his new user Id (keeps changing it) which I will be phoning through to CSA tomorrow. He is registered unemployed

That would make him the benefit cheat and not self employed, you should reporting of such.

Sidekick_2

PreludeForTimeFeelers wrote: »

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.

Yes but, the csa can use any information to determine someone's income. The NRP income can be determined on life-style via the formula assessment or a departure.

dktreesea

Sidekick wrote: »

That would make him the benefit cheat and not self employed, you should reporting of such.

That would possibly be true if he was claiming JSA (but even then can't he can earn up to £1000 a year?) But if he works at it over 24 hours a week (used to be 16) is registered as self employed and claims working tax credits because he doesn't earn much, where's the fraud?

Sidekick_2

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.

Most self-assessment tax returns and accounts are prepared by accountants on behalf of their clients. Their job is to prepare accounts for inland revenue which is tax efficient for the client.
The profit and loss account will show that this is activity for a given year, some years a business may even make a loss. There are many factors that causes a loss, it could be a downturn in the economy, other businesses going bankrupt, loss of contracts or even ill health.
Your comments that the self-employed commit fraud on a large-scale is without foundation or fact.

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.

How does the taxpayer prop up the failing business ?

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?

Appeal the decision, and take it to the tribunal service.

Sidekick_2

dktreesea wrote: »

That would possibly be true if he was claiming JSA (but even then can't he can earn up to £1000 a year?) But if he works at it over 24 hours a week (used to be 16) is registered as self employed and claims working tax credits because he doesn't earn much, where's the fraud?

Exactly where is the fraud, the poster i commented on stated he was registered unemployed.

PreludeForTimeFeelers

Sidekick wrote: »

Yes but, the csa can use any information to determine someone's income. The NRP income can be determined on life-style via the formula assessment or a departure.

The onus is then put on the PWC to prove it, and for all she knows the NRP may be being supported by family or friends, may have savings or may be getting further and further into debt - how could she prove he'd submitted fraudulent returns which had been investigated by HMRC? The agreements between HMRC and the Csa should mean that if there IS fraud going on then they notify Csa of their findings.