Absolutely dx! Hold on to this thought.. 25 to 30% of Vanquis profits come from the (mis) selling of repayment option plan

I would suggest reading COP (code of practice) 26 this gives details of the procedures to follow in tax credit overpayment situations. Go to the HMRC website and enter COP 26 in search box. You had a reasonable belief that all was in order, the error is theirs!

The repayment option plan can still be mis sold though and in the details about it, it says it will pay out if you're pregnant, sick, unemployed etc but of course most people would get paid during those times either by their employer or DWP so Vanquis will not then pay out. In Nov 2011, the FSA issued a warning to companies informing them that it would take very seriously the mis selling of PPI like products which the repayment option plan is.

Interestingly, if the child goes on to further education they can actually apply for maintainance in their own right to support them through their university course; I can't remember what it's called now

If you have a partnership business, you have to choose a nominated partner ( you decide between you) The nominated partner has to complete a partnership return giving details of the split of profit/losses Each partner (including the nominated partner) has to complete a self assessment return which contains a partnership page giving details of the profit/loss split as per the partnership return You have to file on line. You need to obtain a password in order to access the on line filing facility, you can do all this by going to HMRC website, click on self assessment and there is a link for filing on line

Sorry for spelling errors; I can't get rid of the predictive text!

I am assuming you advised HMRC of your self employment. When you register for on line self assessment, you receive an activation code and password both of which are sent seprately. If you have difficulty logging on you are advised to contact the self assessment helpline. If the return is sent in after the filing date then a fixed automatic penalty will apply. What you need to do now (if you haven't already) is get the return submitted to stop further penalties being applied. You should give details of the amount you received for the period of self employment relating to the self employment less any allowable expenses such as fuel, laundry expenses for cleaning uniform etc One concern I do have ( nothing to do with you of course) is why you are now classed as an employee; what has changed from what you were doing before? The reason I ask this us because it is the responsibility if the employer/engager to correctly establish your employment status. If they said you were self employed when you were really employed, it would be there responsibility to pay the tax and NI Details about payment etc should be in a written agreement, contract or particulars of engagement. You can check your status yourself by going on to the HMRC website and putting ESI (employment status indicator) in the search box Regards Gbarbm

Thank you Hun!

I take it the Company accountant maintains the DLA and prepares a chronological analysis of the credits/debits so that details can be entered on the CT600. I thought that the son was an employee but as he isn't the director can withdraw amounts for any purpose and as long as the DLA is in credit, then there are no implications other than the fact that the director should charge the company interest and declare it on his SA return. If the account goes overdrawn by more than £5K at any time during the tax year, then a beneficial loan has arisen and section 175 interest would be chargeable ( as well a section 419 interest for CT purposes)

Is the son an employee or director of the company? The whole purpose of a directors loan account (DLA) is because the director has loaned the company money and recoups their investment via the DLA Wages (whether their own or someone elses) can be withdrawn from the DLA but tax and NI should be deducted as normal.

Indeed... My very good friend the NI compliance inspector is VERY interested in this, so if posters could let me know the website/twitter hastag etc then this will be looked into.

Now here's a thought; Competition driven by cost-cutting is pushing down pay and conditions. This is causing chronic staff turnover and recruitment problems - making it difficult for people to form meaningful relationships with their care staff. As councils seek to save money they are cutting their well-trained homecare staff and replacing them with private agencies who promise to do it cheaper. Many of these agencies cut wages, don't train or vet staff, cut visit times and deliver poor services which are letting people down. I know your daughter is not in a union, but if she rings the local authority union (google their website for the number) they will give advice over the phone

VAT is payable as you are aware on the supply of goods or services, so it would appear that it is the sellers responsibility to pay the VAT. However, I know there are some slight differences with transfer of going concern. I am not in work today and so don't have access to my VATA manual (with handwritten notes) so I will check in the morning and PM you if that's ok Kind regards Gbarbm

LOL! When is the judgement expected?

It is a difficult one I know. HMRC prefer to rely on documentary evidence wherever possible; the only thing I can suggest you do is respond to the letter stating the facts as in your original post

Sometimes when tax credits check claims, they look at who is registered for council tax at the address on the tax credit claim.

Just respond to the compliance letter with the facts as you have stated them above. Can I just ask you, are both of you registered at the property for council tax?

Noncu means non cumulative. It is a coding device if you like (often referred to the emergency code in laymans terms) where the pay on each week or month is treated as if it were the first week or month of the tax year. The usual reason why this coding basis may be used is because HMRC have no information of the tax pagers circumstances for the period from 6 April up until the date the job commenced. Once the information is obtained, cumulation will be restored. However, as it is now the end of the tax year HMRC will await P60 details. The P60 will be issued to the individual by 31 May but HMRC are unlikely to process it until Sept. If the individual wants HMRC to check if a refund is due before then, a copy of the P60 should be sent to HMRC with a covering letter giving full details of any other income received in the tax year to 5 April 2012 requesting that they carry out a review. There is likely to be a refund due as the non cumulative basis does deduct slightly more tax than the normal cumulative basis

Did she have any previous employment before this one and if so, did she have a P45 and did she hand it to the new employer? Also, regarding the tax code, is there an x or W1/M1 after it?

Some people with hypothyroidism have reported good results from taking iodine rich foods such as shellfish, fish and kelp

The new monthly threshold for deduction of income contingent student loan is £1316. If your monthly gross pay is more than that, the deduction will be 9% of the excess E.g £2000 less £1316 = £684 @ 9% = £61.56 deduction Check your payslip for the deduction.

Student Loans are an unusual case, as they changed in September 1998. Any Student Loan taken out before this date was a consumer credit agreement, which means the Limitation Act 1980 applies. But any Student Loan taken since then is an ‘income contingent’ loan – so repayments can be deducted from your wages without any court involvement, regardless of how old the debt is

lol

I love the bit about hiding pornographic literature in the bundle! We have all, when reading through trial bundles, come across documents that just shouldn't be there. There is an apocryphal story of one solicitor who would bury pages of pornography deep within the files as a means of checking whether or not counsel actually bothered to read them. Sometimes, however, the buried treasure consists of documentation that ought to have been clothed in privilege

You may find it useful to read this case; [1] See ITC Film Distributors v Video Exchange Ltd & Others [1982] 2 AER 241