Never a dull moment
Over a year ago a person contacted me in despair. They had received a 6-figure tax bill from the Inland Revenue and had spent over a year trying to persuade the Inland Revenue that the liability was wrong. And stupidly wrong at that.
After I got involved, I pointed out to the Revenue that the tax assessed exceeded the taxpayers total income in each and every year. At which the Inland Revenue agreed it looked stupid; suspended collection; and we gathered together all the paperwork to allow them to cancel the assessment. That in itself took over 6 months, but at the end of it the liability was almost totally cancelled.
Anyone who has ever had dealings with the CSA will know that their processes are more obscure and much more complex than the Inland Revenue, and getting errors corrected is even more difficult. Doing so is not helped when they repeatedly receive incorrect information from third parties and are persuaded to use that information - as the DPA record shows.
It is perhaps no coincidence that this week my solicitors gave me confirmation that the official mistakes/misunderstandings had been acknowledged and the sums sought would be cancelled as soon as the paperwork is put in place and certain processes completed.
However "CSA wrongly pursue parent for vast sums" doesn't make as good a headline.
After I got involved, I pointed out to the Revenue that the tax assessed exceeded the taxpayers total income in each and every year. At which the Inland Revenue agreed it looked stupid; suspended collection; and we gathered together all the paperwork to allow them to cancel the assessment. That in itself took over 6 months, but at the end of it the liability was almost totally cancelled.
Anyone who has ever had dealings with the CSA will know that their processes are more obscure and much more complex than the Inland Revenue, and getting errors corrected is even more difficult. Doing so is not helped when they repeatedly receive incorrect information from third parties and are persuaded to use that information - as the DPA record shows.
It is perhaps no coincidence that this week my solicitors gave me confirmation that the official mistakes/misunderstandings had been acknowledged and the sums sought would be cancelled as soon as the paperwork is put in place and certain processes completed.
However "CSA wrongly pursue parent for vast sums" doesn't make as good a headline.
2 comments:
Angus,
You may not want to publish this and I am sure that you know what I am going to write, but others may not.
The CSA publish a calculator on their website.
If you were due to pay £800 per month to the CSA that equates to a takehome pay of about £1,500 per week; if your eldest has left school that will jump to perhaps £2,500 per week.
You are the accountant, but I make £1,500pw takehome is about £180,000 annual salary; whilst £2,500pw is somewhere around £225,000.
With all due respect, I don't think that your business is that good!
This leads to the conclusion that:
(a) the Sunday Mail article is utter bollocks
(b) the CSA have got it badly wrong
(c) your ex is a vindictive lying bitch, or
(d) all of the above.
None of which excuses the dirty fingerprints of the SNP smear squad.
i think the answer you are looking for is (d) but particularly (c)
Post a Comment