Me again - payslips?

PixiePie

Hi all,

Was reading something on another forum, and someone mentioned having to send in payslips, which leaves me in a bit of a worry, as I don't have any. Is it a legal requirement for someone to give you a payslip if you are a PAYE employee? :S My job was as a minimum wage up to my tax allowance workaholic in my OH's business (officially his, in reality, ours), so that's why I don't have any. The Inland revenue sent him a little booklet of 'payslips' but they are more like giro/cheque looking things (with space for an offical stamp etc) rather than the printed payslip slips I used to get when working in all my previous 'proper' (ie outside, for companies such as B&Q etc) jobs.

Am really worried either he is going to jail for not doing something right, or OR won't belive how little I earnt over last year, and up until Sept. this year...argh, it's all so confusing!

RAS

Has he been paying NI for you?

Think it would be wise to have a chat with your accountant.

wherediditallgo

I wasn't asked for my payslips & I suspect most people on PAYE aren't either. Explain the situation to the OR, & give them your NI number & tax code - you or your husband should have at least these, as you get your NI number when you first start paying NI & you should get details of your tax code on your P60 at the end of each tax year.

Are both of you going BR, or just you? If it's just you, the OR may be unhappy with what he sees on paper, but he can't penalise you for errors your 'employer' may have made. As you were working for your husband, the OR may liaise with the Inland Revenue for details of what your husband submitted on his tax returns in relation to your pay, & will probably get copies of your bank statements to look at your spending patterns, but I think that's the furthest it would go. Even if your husband hasn't done things quite right, the main thing is for you to be honest with the OR about what happened. And your husband isn't likely to be going to jail either, unless there was very good evidence that some sort of tax evasion was going on, & on a pretty big scale too.

PixiePie

It's just me going BR - We know that the tax and everything is ok, he isn't liable for paying NI for me as I earn so little - which is due to a) I couldn't work for an outside employer due to bursting into tears every 10 minutes so we decided that I should at least train in what the business is (the making side of things) and get paid for doing what I know how to do (the business/marketing side of things), and b) that as this is kind of business is a bit of a lifestyle choice as well as 'just work' it was an investment for our future. And then the contract fell through and the bank (his business account) weren't wonderfully helpful so things weren't going well enough to pay me anymore. As it's so little it doesn't really help with the business paying tax or not to be honest, so don't see how it can be tax fraud (well, I do, but it isn't and if it were, I'm sure that people would fraud for a lot more than a measly tax relief of £4k lol).

Talking to our accountant is a little tricky as it's my father and I don't want him to know I'm going BR

NekoZombie

Hmm, yet another difference between me and wdiag, and we went bankrupt at the same court within days of each other.

1. I was asked by the OR to send them all cheque books, credit cards and switch cards to them. Wdiag was not.

2. I had to send in three months of payslips, which it looks like they have kept for their records. Again, Wdiag was not.

My advice would be, be ready for anything as despite going bankrupt at the same court, different clerks VERY CLEARLY do different things.

Grrr, I would *love* some consistency at court level from the OR's office, let alone nationwide!

Richard_S

PixiePie wrote: »

Hi all,

Was reading something on another forum, and someone mentioned having to send in payslips, which leaves me in a bit of a worry, as I don't have any. Is it a legal requirement for someone to give you a payslip if you are a PAYE employee? :S My job was as a minimum wage up to my tax allowance workaholic in my OH's business (officially his, in reality, ours), so that's why I don't have any. The Inland revenue sent him a little booklet of 'payslips' but they are more like giro/cheque looking things (with space for an offical stamp etc) rather than the printed payslip slips I used to get when working in all my previous 'proper' (ie outside, for companies such as B&Q etc) jobs.

Am really worried either he is going to jail for not doing something right, or OR won't belive how little I earnt over last year, and up until Sept. this year...argh, it's all so confusing!

Hi Pixie,

You won't have any problems with the way you've conducted your PAYE. You can buy blank pay slips from WH Smiths so you could always fill those in retrospectively; hand written ones that is.

Richard

wherediditallgo

NekoZombie wrote: »

Hmm, yet another difference between me and wdiag, and we went bankrupt at the same court within days of each other.

1. I was asked by the OR to send them all cheque books, credit cards and switch cards to them. Wdiag was not.

2. I had to send in three months of payslips, which it looks like they have kept for their records. Again, Wdiag was not.

My advice would be, be ready for anything as despite going bankrupt at the same court, different clerks VERY CLEARLY do different things.

Grrr, I would *love* some consistency at court level from the OR's office, let alone nationwide!

I must admit, every time I see the differences between our cases, I feel a bit uncomfortable/upset. Maybe they felt sorry for me because of my ill-health (I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for me too now), or maybe there was so little to query on my SOA that they didn't bother with anything else.

Neither of us are at fault, but it does make me wonder if people realise that quite a bit seems to hinge on what OR gets allocated to your case, & that shouldn't really be the case. If the differences were just down to how we completed our SOAs (I think I included everything bar my blood group) & how we presented our cases on the day, then thank goodness for forums like this where people can get help. How people who don't use (or even know about) forums manage never fails to amaze me.

NekoZombie

Hey Wdiag

of course, I don't blame you at all

It just really amazes me that such differences can occur within the same court, let alone between someone who went bankrupt in different parts of the country. Why should one person be allowed a houskeeping budget on £250 while another is only allowed £182, and they're both single people. One person allowed education, another not at all even though they can demonstrate they are enrolled on a course. Again, why no consistency with paperwork requirements. I understand each case is individual, but these discrepancies seem to occur far too often, and I see no reason for it.

Indeed, its only because of the growth of Forums like this that we the bankrupts are beginning to realise we are not always getting a fair deal!!

Richard_S

NekoZombie wrote: »

Hey Wdiag

of course, I don't blame you at all

It just really amazes me that such differences can occur within the same court, let alone between someone who went bankrupt in different parts of the country. Why should one person be allowed a houskeeping budget on £250 while another is only allowed £182, and they're both single people. One person allowed education, another not at all even though they can demonstrate they are enrolled on a course. Again, why no consistency with paperwork requirements. I understand each case is individual, but these discrepancies seem to occur far too often, and I see no reason for it.

Hi Neko,

It does seem unfair and unbelievably unprofessional if not incompetent, but you can understand why it happens when you think it's completely different people interpreting guidelines and complex technical manuals. You could go to half a dozen different Doctors, solicitors and accountants and get just as many differing opinions and interpretations.

The beauty of sites like this is that you can compare with others and then argue your case if you think you've been treated unfairly; problem there is that a lot of people are intimidated by the O.R.

Richard

kerryboo

i read somewhere that they wouldn't be interested in my car if the value of the car was less then £1000 this is not the case mines a banger with dent and the or wants to have it i would value it at £100 - never mind its only metal

NekoZombie

Richard_S wrote: »

Hi Neko,

It does seem unfair and unbelievably unprofessional if not incompetent, but you can understand why it happens when you think it's completely different people interpreting guidelines and complex technical manuals. You could go to half a dozen different Doctors, solicitors and accountants and get just as many differing opinions and interpretations.

The beauty of sites like this is that you can compare with others and then argue your case if you think you've been treated unfairly; problem there is that a lot of people are intimidated by the O.R.

Richard

Yes Rich

I totally agree. However, I still think they need to tighten up procedures. It's becoming a bit of a jungle out there - part of me feels that you should be able to trust the OR to have your best interests at heart, and we all know that actually they only seem driven to find surplus fund from the estate.