CSA Confusion

ddavis

Hi,

Quick question that hopefully somebody can help with.

A friend of mines ex is self employed. He submitted a return for the tax year ending April 2011 and was assessed at around £28. He'd actually been paying (well, not paying) £5 for that period.

Immediately after submitting the return he declared that he was no longer self employed and his assessment is now £10 based on tax credits.

Now, my question is - what happened to the 12 months of him underpaying by £23? His assessment was for a period that had already passed, so he should have been paying £28 for a year. Instead he was charged £5. Surely the CSA can do simple maths? Yes, he should NOW be paying £10 but for a whole year they undercharged him. As soon as they got the evidence that he should be paying more he announces he's not self employed and that amount just vanishes? This can't be right.

So by my maths he has got away without paying £1196 that he should have - all because he lied for a year and then changed employment status when they realised.

Is it worth demonstrating the maths behind all this and sending it to the CSA? I know any judge would agree with it, because it's a simple calculation. I wonder how many other parents have been caught short by this.

Admittedly the waste of oxygen has never paid a penny, but still...

Thanks
DD

Sidekick_2

ddavis wrote: »

Hi,


Quick question that hopefully somebody can help with.

A friend of mines ex is self employed. He submitted a return for the tax year ending April 2011 and was assessed at around £28. He'd actually been paying (well, not paying) £5 for that period.

Immediately after submitting the return he declared that he was no longer self employed and his assessment is now £10 based on tax credits.

A self employed person's income is worked out over a 12 month period and then divided by 52 to give a weekly income.
Was he unemployed before this period?

If he ceased to be self employed this would be a change of circumstance, the new assessment would be made.

Now, my question is - what happened to the 12 months of him underpaying by £23? His assessment was for a period that had already passed, so he should have been paying £28 for a year.

Instead he was charged £5. Surely the CSA can do simple maths? Yes, he should NOW be paying £10 but for a whole year they undercharged him. As soon as they got the evidence that he should be paying more he announces he's not self employed and that amount just vanishes? This can't be right.

The the amount changes from each effective date, or change of circumstance. They have not under charged him, his circumstances have changed.

So by my maths he has got away without paying £1196 that he should have - all because he lied for a year and then changed employment status when they realised.

How has he lied? You state at the top of your post that he was self employed.

Is it worth demonstrating the maths behind all this and sending it to the CSA? I know any judge would agree with it, because it's a simple calculation. I wonder how many other parents have been caught short by this.

A simple calculation and the csa do not go together in the same sentence.

Admittedly the waste of oxygen has never paid a penny, but still...

Why not ?

ddavis

His assessment for the previous year was made on April 1st 2009. He stated that he would earn XYZ and they made it about £10.

Around xmas 2010 he completed a self assessment for April 2009 to April 2010. In it he put his earnings. These earnings equated to £28 per week in CSA terms (significantly more than he forecast).

The important part of this to remember is that the self assessment was for a period of time in the past that the CSA had already assessed based on his information.

So, April this year the CSA get this information and say it should be £28. He says he's not self employed anymore, it goes straight back down to £5.

From April 2009 to April 2010 he should have been paying £28 per week, by his own admission (through his self assessment).

That money has 'vanished' via some poor accounting by the CSA.

ddavis

Sidekick wrote: »

Why not ?

Missed this bit.

Erm, without using rude words I cannot truly explain to you.

But he has made no effort and I'm led to believe that committal is just 'down the road'.

He has always claimed that he can't afford it, but goes down the pub every night and spends £20 to £30. People have even photographed him doing it.