Hi all,

I've been lurking on this group for a few weeks now as my current
situation with the CSA is reaching crisis point and I need to make
some changes to my situation so that I can cope with the next 12 years
without going insane or bankrupt (or both).

I am a NRP who has never had any contact with the child or my ex-wife
since we split up 7 years ago. I was basically tricked into fathering
the child as my ex-wife decided she didn't want to work full time
anymore. I was never anything but completely honest with her about my
lack of interest in having children and living off the state, so she
decided to go ahead and do it anyway, unilaterally. She stopped taking
the pill and kicked me out as soon as she found out she was pregnant.
I have not had any contact since, and attempting to try and reason
with her would be futile.

Anyway, the CSA is currently taking 22% of my take home salary because
they say I was incorrectly assessed a few years ago and am in arrears.
I am trying to supporting my current partner who is ill and unable to
work, but it is impossible to cover our own bills and living expenses
when the CSA take over £400 a month directly from my earnings and we
are sinking in debt that we cannot afford to pay back.

I've decided to look into going self-employed... I've not talked to my
employer about it yet, but I will do once I have done a bit of
planning. I've been reading Fletchers posts with great interest on
this subject and have a few questions:

- What is the benefit of setting myself up as a sole trader as opposed
to a limited company?

- Which bank is the best with which to open an offshore account? I
have no money to open it with and my credit rating is very poor - I
presume this is going to be a hindrance?

Thanks in advance for your time - any response would be greatly
appreciated!

-ManBearPig

As a LTD.

CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any other 
defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court for 
failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to side 
swipe where the cash goes

As sole trader they can scream and shout and even jail you but they can't 
make you pay.

Banks
Any bank registered in another country. As for enrolment, I don't know.

Don't own anything, legally give everything to someone you trust

If you own the mortgage they will put a charge on that preventing you from 
selling without clearing their debt.

Don't use an accountant, csa can deman they tell them everything or they 
face court. go sole trader self assesment for tax.

Don't work under contract, csa can demand the contract fee from your client 
and get it too.

Ultimately be prepared to actually go to Jail

Consider immigration
being a house husband i.e. your ex can run the business and you "help her" 
for free, she pays you house keeping, get my drift...

Glad your fighting as £400 for one kid is outrageous.


"ManBearPig"  wrote in message 
news:18456eaa-2e9d-4e3e-b526-b78d82e05354@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hi all,

I've been lurking on this group for a few weeks now as my current
situation with the CSA is reaching crisis point and I need to make
some changes to my situation so that I can cope with the next 12 years
without going insane or bankrupt (or both).

I am a NRP who has never had any contact with the child or my ex-wife
since we split up 7 years ago. I was basically tricked into fathering
the child as my ex-wife decided she didn't want to work full time
anymore. I was never anything but completely honest with her about my
lack of interest in having children and living off the state, so she
decided to go ahead and do it anyway, unilaterally. She stopped taking
the pill and kicked me out as soon as she found out she was pregnant.
I have not had any contact since, and attempting to try and reason
with her would be futile.

Anyway, the CSA is currently taking 22% of my take home salary because
they say I was incorrectly assessed a few years ago and am in arrears.
I am trying to supporting my current partner who is ill and unable to
work, but it is impossible to cover our own bills and living expenses
when the CSA take over £400 a month directly from my earnings and we
are sinking in debt that we cannot afford to pay back.

I've decided to look into going self-employed... I've not talked to my
employer about it yet, but I will do once I have done a bit of
planning. I've been reading Fletchers posts with great interest on
this subject and have a few questions:

- What is the benefit of setting myself up as a sole trader as opposed
to a limited company?

- Which bank is the best with which to open an offshore account? I
have no money to open it with and my credit rating is very poor - I
presume this is going to be a hindrance?

Thanks in advance for your time - any response would be greatly
appreciated!

-ManBearPig

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:35:29 +0100, Fletcher   
wrote:

> As a LTD.
>
> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any  
> other
> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court for
> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to  
> side
> swipe where the cash goes

Fletcher, am I right in thinking that if someone is on CS2 and they are an  
executive director of a limited company then you can simply pay yourself a  
small salary say around £100 p/w and then draw dividends (exempt from  
income on CS2?) or has that now changed?

Would you get done for diversion of funds (or whatever the correct term  
is) if you paid yourself no salary as an executive director (as nat. min.  
wage is not necessary for directors IIRC) and drew dividends. (Could  
complicate private pensions issue though I suppose).

What would happen if wifey/partner was an *executive* company director and  
NRP was simply a non or low-salaried *non-executive* director? Would being  
a non-exec director negate an 'diversion of funds' issues that may arise  
as they can be regarded as either employed by the business or, perhaps  
better still in this situation, self-employed under a contract for  
services in UK law. Importantly, it would also mean that they could have  
no board level involvement in the day to day decision making process of  
the business as they are not full board members. It would seem possible  
for a couple therefore to set up a limited company with partner being an  
exec director drawing the full financial whack and the NRP being a  
non-exec director, acting a self-employed and charging the company a  
miserly sum (say £100) for his services. As he could not partcipate in how  
the company is run, in fact he is legally excluded from doing this as a  
non-exec dirctor, would this negate any 'diversion of funds' argument that  
may arise?

What do you reckon?

<snip>

> "ManBearPig"  wrote in message
> news:18456eaa-2e9d-4e3e-b526-b78d82e05354@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been lurking on this group for a few weeks now as my current
> situation with the CSA is reaching crisis point and I need to make
> some changes to my situation so that I can cope with the next 12 years
> without going insane or bankrupt (or both).
>
> I am a NRP who has never had any contact with the child or my ex-wife
> since we split up 7 years ago. I was basically tricked into fathering
> the child as my ex-wife decided she didn't want to work full time
> anymore. I was never anything but completely honest with her about my
> lack of interest in having children and living off the state, so she
> decided to go ahead and do it anyway, unilaterally. She stopped taking
> the pill and kicked me out as soon as she found out she was pregnant.
> I have not had any contact since, and attempting to try and reason
> with her would be futile.
>
> Anyway, the CSA is currently taking 22% of my take home salary because
> they say I was incorrectly assessed a few years ago and am in arrears.
> I am trying to supporting my current partner who is ill and unable to
> work, but it is impossible to cover our own bills and living expenses
> when the CSA take over £400 a month directly from my earnings and we
> are sinking in debt that we cannot afford to pay back.
>
> I've decided to look into going self-employed... I've not talked to my
> employer about it yet, but I will do once I have done a bit of
> planning. I've been reading Fletchers posts with great interest on
> this subject and have a few questions:
>
> - What is the benefit of setting myself up as a sole trader as opposed
> to a limited company?
>
> - Which bank is the best with which to open an offshore account? I
> have no money to open it with and my credit rating is very poor - I
> presume this is going to be a hindrance?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time - any response would be greatly
> appreciated!
>
> -ManBearPig
>
>

If it's income the Gestapo want there cut, from divs to interest.

Messing around with Ltd is possible but can get complex, your playing with 
company law and you can make mistakes, having the wife/partner etc running 
the thing and paying you a small wage is a solution but for easy complete 
control I'd recommend sole trader unless you specifically need Ltd for 
protection.

Others here can probably better explain the in's and out's of Ltd.


"Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message 
news:op.udyxd9rzwzzi51@development-lap.home...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:35:29 +0100, Fletcher  
> wrote:
>
>> As a LTD.
>>
>> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any 
>> other
>> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court for
>> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to 
>> side
>> swipe where the cash goes
>
> Fletcher, am I right in thinking that if someone is on CS2 and they are an 
> executive director of a limited company then you can simply pay yourself a 
> small salary say around £100 p/w and then draw dividends (exempt from 
> income on CS2?) or has that now changed?
>
> Would you get done for diversion of funds (or whatever the correct term 
> is) if you paid yourself no salary as an executive director (as nat. min. 
> wage is not necessary for directors IIRC) and drew dividends. (Could 
> complicate private pensions issue though I suppose).
>
> What would happen if wifey/partner was an *executive* company director and 
> NRP was simply a non or low-salaried *non-executive* director? Would being 
> a non-exec director negate an 'diversion of funds' issues that may arise 
> as they can be regarded as either employed by the business or, perhaps 
> better still in this situation, self-employed under a contract for 
> services in UK law. Importantly, it would also mean that they could have 
> no board level involvement in the day to day decision making process of 
> the business as they are not full board members. It would seem possible 
> for a couple therefore to set up a limited company with partner being an 
> exec director drawing the full financial whack and the NRP being a 
> non-exec director, acting a self-employed and charging the company a 
> miserly sum (say £100) for his services. As he could not partcipate in how 
> the company is run, in fact he is legally excluded from doing this as a 
> non-exec dirctor, would this negate any 'diversion of funds' argument that 
> may arise?
>
> What do you reckon?
>
> <snip>
>
>> "ManBearPig"  wrote in message
>> news:18456eaa-2e9d-4e3e-b526-b78d82e05354@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been lurking on this group for a few weeks now as my current
>> situation with the CSA is reaching crisis point and I need to make
>> some changes to my situation so that I can cope with the next 12 years
>> without going insane or bankrupt (or both).
>>
>> I am a NRP who has never had any contact with the child or my ex-wife
>> since we split up 7 years ago. I was basically tricked into fathering
>> the child as my ex-wife decided she didn't want to work full time
>> anymore. I was never anything but completely honest with her about my
>> lack of interest in having children and living off the state, so she
>> decided to go ahead and do it anyway, unilaterally. She stopped taking
>> the pill and kicked me out as soon as she found out she was pregnant.
>> I have not had any contact since, and attempting to try and reason
>> with her would be futile.
>>
>> Anyway, the CSA is currently taking 22% of my take home salary because
>> they say I was incorrectly assessed a few years ago and am in arrears.
>> I am trying to supporting my current partner who is ill and unable to
>> work, but it is impossible to cover our own bills and living expenses
>> when the CSA take over £400 a month directly from my earnings and we
>> are sinking in debt that we cannot afford to pay back.
>>
>> I've decided to look into going self-employed... I've not talked to my
>> employer about it yet, but I will do once I have done a bit of
>> planning. I've been reading Fletchers posts with great interest on
>> this subject and have a few questions:
>>
>> - What is the benefit of setting myself up as a sole trader as opposed
>> to a limited company?
>>
>> - Which bank is the best with which to open an offshore account? I
>> have no money to open it with and my credit rating is very poor - I
>> presume this is going to be a hindrance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your time - any response would be greatly
>> appreciated!
>>
>> -ManBearPig
>>
>>
>

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:55:12 +0100, Fletcher   
wrote:

> If it's income the Gestapo want there cut, from divs to interest.

Does that apply specifically to CS2 also? ISTR whilst looking at archived  
posts to this group it was mentioned that dividends were exempt under CS2.  
The posts were a few years old though, so the rules may have changed since  
then I suppose.

> Messing around with Ltd is possible but can get complex, your playing  
> with
> company law and you can make mistakes, having the wife/partner etc  
> running
> the thing and paying you a small wage is a solution but for easy complete
> control I'd recommend sole trader unless you specifically need Ltd for
> protection.

It was just a thought that had never dawned on me before. As a non-exec  
director the NRP could be legally classed as self-employed under contract  
to the limited company thereby making a legal distinction between the  
self-employed non-exec and the limited company (which would receive all  
monies). No doubt though, as the CSA rules (over)ride roughshod over a  
number of areas statute law, they probably have something somewhere that  
caters for this eventuality.

OOI, any ideas where I may find any info on this because as you say,  
company law seems a little complex.

> Others here can probably better explain the in's and out's of Ltd.

Completely OT, but this group seems a lot quiter than it once did. Is that  
because Usenet is dieing or is it just that most people are happy with the  
CSA these days? ;o)

> "Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message
> news:op.udyxd9rzwzzi51@development-lap.home...
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:35:29 +0100, Fletcher 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As a LTD.
>>>
>>> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any
>>> other
>>> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court  
>>> for
>>> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to
>>> side
>>> swipe where the cash goes
>>
>> Fletcher, am I right in thinking that if someone is on CS2 and they are  
>> an
>> executive director of a limited company then you can simply pay  
>> yourself a
>> small salary say around £100 p/w and then draw dividends (exempt from
>> income on CS2?) or has that now changed?
>>
>> Would you get done for diversion of funds (or whatever the correct term
>> is) if you paid yourself no salary as an executive director (as nat.  
>> min.
>> wage is not necessary for directors IIRC) and drew dividends. (Could
>> complicate private pensions issue though I suppose).
>>
>> What would happen if wifey/partner was an *executive* company director  
>> and
>> NRP was simply a non or low-salaried *non-executive* director? Would  
>> being
>> a non-exec director negate an 'diversion of funds' issues that may arise
>> as they can be regarded as either employed by the business or, perhaps
>> better still in this situation, self-employed under a contract for
>> services in UK law. Importantly, it would also mean that they could have
>> no board level involvement in the day to day decision making process of
>> the business as they are not full board members. It would seem possible
>> for a couple therefore to set up a limited company with partner being an
>> exec director drawing the full financial whack and the NRP being a
>> non-exec director, acting a self-employed and charging the company a
>> miserly sum (say £100) for his services. As he could not partcipate in  
>> how
>> the company is run, in fact he is legally excluded from doing this as a
>> non-exec dirctor, would this negate any 'diversion of funds' argument  
>> that
>> may arise?
>>
>> What do you reckon?
>>

<snip>

On Jul 8, 10:35 am, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> As a LTD.
>
> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any other
> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court for
> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to side
> swipe where the cash goes
>
> As sole trader they can scream and shout and even jail you but they can't
> make you pay.
>
> Banks
> Any bank registered in another country. As for enrolment, I don't know.
>
> Don't own anything, legally give everything to someone you trust
>
> If you own the mortgage they will put a charge on that preventing you from
> selling without clearing their debt.
>
> Don't use an accountant, csa can deman they tell them everything or they
> face court. go sole trader self assesment for tax.
>
> Don't work under contract, csa can demand the contract fee from your client
> and get it too.
>
> Ultimately be prepared to actually go to Jail
>
> Consider immigration
> being a house husband i.e. your ex can run the business and you "help her> for free, she pays you house keeping, get my drift...
>
> Glad your fighting as £400 for one kid is outrageous.

Thanks - this gives me something to think about. Didn't realise I
still ran the risk of jail by going self-employed... immigration is
looking like the best bet, I'm safe anywhere in the EU right? It would
be better to live like a bum on the streets of Madrid than work my
arse off in a well paid job and still be unable to pay my bills. At
least I'd be free!

This might help answer or even give you ideas
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490

Seems they are and they aren't typical gobbledegook from government but 
essentially yes on CS1 but no on CS2 unless PWC applies for a variation then 
they are?

>legally classed as self-employed under contract

CSA can claim any contract money!

INFO Just digg around in Google using different search phrases

Don't know why things have quietened down, maybe they don't like my language 
hee hee.


"Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message 
news:op.udy8qvptwzzi51@development-lap.home...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:55:12 +0100, Fletcher  
> wrote:
>
>> If it's income the Gestapo want there cut, from divs to interest.
>
> Does that apply specifically to CS2 also? ISTR whilst looking at archived 
> posts to this group it was mentioned that dividends were exempt under CS2. 
> The posts were a few years old though, so the rules may have changed since 
> then I suppose.
>
>> Messing around with Ltd is possible but can get complex, your playing 
>> with
>> company law and you can make mistakes, having the wife/partner etc 
>> running
>> the thing and paying you a small wage is a solution but for easy complete
>> control I'd recommend sole trader unless you specifically need Ltd for
>> protection.
>
> It was just a thought that had never dawned on me before. As a non-exec 
> director the NRP could be legally classed as self-employed under contract 
> to the limited company thereby making a legal distinction between the 
> self-employed non-exec and the limited company (which would receive all 
> monies). No doubt though, as the CSA rules (over)ride roughshod over a 
> number of areas statute law, they probably have something somewhere that 
> caters for this eventuality.
>
> OOI, any ideas where I may find any info on this because as you say, 
> company law seems a little complex.
>
>> Others here can probably better explain the in's and out's of Ltd.
>
> Completely OT, but this group seems a lot quiter than it once did. Is that 
> because Usenet is dieing or is it just that most people are happy with the 
> CSA these days? ;o)
>
>> "Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:op.udyxd9rzwzzi51@development-lap.home...
>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:35:29 +0100, Fletcher 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a LTD.
>>>>
>>>> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any
>>>> other
>>>> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court 
>>>> for
>>>> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to
>>>> side
>>>> swipe where the cash goes
>>>
>>> Fletcher, am I right in thinking that if someone is on CS2 and they are 
>>> an
>>> executive director of a limited company then you can simply pay 
>>> yourself a
>>> small salary say around £100 p/w and then draw dividends (exempt from
>>> income on CS2?) or has that now changed?
>>>
>>> Would you get done for diversion of funds (or whatever the correct term
>>> is) if you paid yourself no salary as an executive director (as nat. 
>>> min.
>>> wage is not necessary for directors IIRC) and drew dividends. (Could
>>> complicate private pensions issue though I suppose).
>>>
>>> What would happen if wifey/partner was an *executive* company director 
>>> and
>>> NRP was simply a non or low-salaried *non-executive* director? Would 
>>> being
>>> a non-exec director negate an 'diversion of funds' issues that may arise
>>> as they can be regarded as either employed by the business or, perhaps
>>> better still in this situation, self-employed under a contract for
>>> services in UK law. Importantly, it would also mean that they could have
>>> no board level involvement in the day to day decision making process of
>>> the business as they are not full board members. It would seem possible
>>> for a couple therefore to set up a limited company with partner being an
>>> exec director drawing the full financial whack and the NRP being a
>>> non-exec director, acting a self-employed and charging the company a
>>> miserly sum (say £100) for his services. As he could not partcipate in 
>>> how
>>> the company is run, in fact he is legally excluded from doing this as a
>>> non-exec dirctor, would this negate any 'diversion of funds' argument 
>>> that
>>> may arise?
>>>
>>> What do you reckon?
>>>
>
> <snip>

Technically they can still chase you anywhere but the trick is make sure 
they don't have a scoobie as to where you are.




"ManBearPig"  wrote in message 
news:7095c004-ba8a-4430-bacd-22d893079371@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 10:35 am, "Fletcher"  wrote:
> As a LTD.
>
> CSA simply demand that the company pay them directly from your or any 
> other
> defaulting employees wages and you must comply else your up in court for
> failing to comply. As an ltd little changes, other than the ability to 
> side
> swipe where the cash goes
>
> As sole trader they can scream and shout and even jail you but they can't
> make you pay.
>
> Banks
> Any bank registered in another country. As for enrolment, I don't know.
>
> Don't own anything, legally give everything to someone you trust
>
> If you own the mortgage they will put a charge on that preventing you from
> selling without clearing their debt.
>
> Don't use an accountant, csa can deman they tell them everything or they
> face court. go sole trader self assesment for tax.
>
> Don't work under contract, csa can demand the contract fee from your 
> client
> and get it too.
>
> Ultimately be prepared to actually go to Jail
>
> Consider immigration
> being a house husband i.e. your ex can run the business and you "help her"
> for free, she pays you house keeping, get my drift...
>
> Glad your fighting as £400 for one kid is outrageous.

Thanks - this gives me something to think about. Didn't realise I
still ran the risk of jail by going self-employed... immigration is
looking like the best bet, I'm safe anywhere in the EU right? It would
be better to live like a bum on the streets of Madrid than work my
arse off in a well paid job and still be unable to pay my bills. At
least I'd be free!

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:09:44 +0100, Fletcher   
wrote:

> This might help answer or even give you ideas
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490
>
> Seems they are and they aren't typical gobbledegook from government but
> essentially yes on CS1 but no on CS2 unless PWC applies for a variation  
> then
> they are?
>
>> legally classed as self-employed under contract
>
> CSA can claim any contract money!

Thanks for the link further above Fletcher.

In that particular thread  
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490] I noted a post  
that stated "From 06/06/05 this ground was extended to allow a variation  
to be given to take into account income received by the non-resident  
parent who has the ability to control the amount of income he receives  
 from a business or company. This applies to income received from that  
business or company which is outside of net weekly income and which is  
more than £100 per week, eg dividend income of a company director."  
[Regulation 19 (1A) of the Child Support Variations Regulations 2000].

The (very) interesting part to me is "...who has the ability to control  
the amount of income he receives from a business or company." Although I  
am only interested in this as a hypothetical situation, it would seem to  
me that a self-employed non-exec director working for a limited company  
and for a pittance would not fall foul of this rule for the simple reason  
that a non-exec has absolutely no ability whatsoever to control the amount  
of income received from the company (be they self-employed or otherwise)  
as non-execs are specifically *exculded* from any kind of involvement in  
such decisions to my understanding.

Just thinking aloud!

> INFO Just digg around in Google using different search phrases

(I have googled and googled and googled but then I decided that I still  
******* hate Google like the plague so I Dogpiled and AltaVista'd instead,  
but I have, as of yet not, found any CSA guidance that deals with the  
specifics of non-executive directors. Maybe thay just assume that everyone  
is a full director? Methinks I will explore some more...)

Footnote: I love the way the 'rules' always state "he" when referring to  
the NRP. Surely there must also be more than one 'she' NRP out there in  
the wild? ;)

> Don't know why things have quietened down, maybe they don't like my  
> language
> hee hee.

<snip>

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:09:44 +0100, Fletcher   
wrote:

> This might help answer or even give you ideas
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490
>
> Seems they are and they aren't typical gobbledegook from government but
> essentially yes on CS1 but no on CS2 unless PWC applies for a variation  
> then
> they are?
>
>> legally classed as self-employed under contract
>
> CSA can claim any contract money!

Thanks for the link further above Fletcher.

In that particular thread  
[forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490] I noted a post  
that stated "From 06/06/05 this ground was extended to allow a variation  
to be given to take into account income received by the non-resident  
parent who has the ability to control the amount of income he receives  
 from a business or company. This applies to income received from that  
business or company which is outside of net weekly income and which is  
more than £100 per week, eg dividend income of a company director."  
[Regulation 19 (1A) of the Child Support Variations Regulations 2000].

The (very) interesting part to me is "...who has the ability to control  
the amount of income he receives from a business or company." Although I  
am only interested in this as a hypothetical situation, it would seem to  
me that a self-employed non-exec director working for a limited company  
and for a pittance would not fall foul of this rule for the simple reason  
that a non-exec has absolutely no ability whatsoever to control the amount  
of income received from the company (be they self-employed or otherwise)  
as non-execs are specifically *exculded* from any kind of involvement in  
such decisions to my understanding.

Just thinking aloud!

> INFO Just digg around in Google using different search phrases

(I have googled and googled and googled but then I decided that I still  
******* hate Google like the plague so I Dogpiled and AltaVista'd instead,  
but I have, as of yet not, found any CSA guidance that deals with the  
specifics of non-executive directors. Maybe thay just assume that everyone  
is a full director? Methinks I will explore some more...)

Footnote: I love the way the 'rules' always state "he" when referring to  
the NRP. Surely there must also be more than one 'she' NRP out there in  
the wild?


> Don't know why things have quietened down, maybe they don't like my  
> language
> hee hee.


<snip>

You can, and I'd suggest doing so, write to them on each and every point 
asking for clarification and or where exactly the answers can be found 
online, copy the mail to your MP and put CC MP such and such on the letter 
and they will have to reply with answers.

If you do,
 post the reply here

"Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message 
news:op.ud0thyitwzzi51@development-lap.home...
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:09:44 +0100, Fletcher  
> wrote:
>
>> This might help answer or even give you ideas
>> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490
>>
>> Seems they are and they aren't typical gobbledegook from government but
>> essentially yes on CS1 but no on CS2 unless PWC applies for a variation 
>> then
>> they are?
>>
>>> legally classed as self-employed under contract
>>
>> CSA can claim any contract money!
>
> Thanks for the link further above Fletcher.
>
> In that particular thread 
> [forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490] I noted a post 
> that stated "From 06/06/05 this ground was extended to allow a variation 
> to be given to take into account income received by the non-resident 
> parent who has the ability to control the amount of income he receives 
> from a business or company. This applies to income received from that 
> business or company which is outside of net weekly income and which is 
> more than £100 per week, eg dividend income of a company director." 
> [Regulation 19 (1A) of the Child Support Variations Regulations 2000].
>
> The (very) interesting part to me is "...who has the ability to control 
> the amount of income he receives from a business or company." Although I 
> am only interested in this as a hypothetical situation, it would seem to 
> me that a self-employed non-exec director working for a limited company 
> and for a pittance would not fall foul of this rule for the simple reason 
> that a non-exec has absolutely no ability whatsoever to control the amount 
> of income received from the company (be they self-employed or otherwise) 
> as non-execs are specifically *exculded* from any kind of involvement in 
> such decisions to my understanding.
>
> Just thinking aloud!
>
>> INFO Just digg around in Google using different search phrases
>
> (I have googled and googled and googled but then I decided that I still 
> ******* hate Google like the plague so I Dogpiled and AltaVista'd instead, 
> but I have, as of yet not, found any CSA guidance that deals with the 
> specifics of non-executive directors. Maybe thay just assume that everyone 
> is a full director? Methinks I will explore some more...)
>
> Footnote: I love the way the 'rules' always state "he" when referring to 
> the NRP. Surely there must also be more than one 'she' NRP out there in 
> the wild? ;)
>
>> Don't know why things have quietened down, maybe they don't like my 
>> language
>> hee hee.
>
> <snip>
>
>

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:26:52 +0100, Fletcher   
wrote:

> You can, and I'd suggest doing so, write to them on each and every point
> asking for clarification and or where exactly the answers can be found
> online, copy the mail to your MP and put CC MP such and such on the  
> letter
> and they will have to reply with answers.
>
> If you do,
>  post the reply here

I have a spare day all day Friday (way too much spare time on my hands  
this week!) so I think that I'll follow up with written questions as you  
have suggested. I'll also drop an email copy too.

If I *ever* get a response I will definately post it here.

> "Tony" <on@request.invalid> wrote in message
> news:op.ud0thyitwzzi51@development-lap.home...
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:09:44 +0100, Fletcher 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This might help answer or even give you ideas
>>> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490
>>>
>>> Seems they are and they aren't typical gobbledegook from government but
>>> essentially yes on CS1 but no on CS2 unless PWC applies for a variation
>>> then
>>> they are?
>>>
>>>> legally classed as self-employed under contract
>>>
>>> CSA can claim any contract money!
>>
>> Thanks for the link further above Fletcher.
>>
>> In that particular thread
>> [forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=432490] I noted a post
>> that stated "From 06/06/05 this ground was extended to allow a variation
>> to be given to take into account income received by the non-resident
>> parent who has the ability to control the amount of income he receives
>> from a business or company. This applies to income received from that
>> business or company which is outside of net weekly income and which is
>> more than £100 per week, eg dividend income of a company director."
>> [Regulation 19 (1A) of the Child Support Variations Regulations 2000].
>>
>> The (very) interesting part to me is "...who has the ability to control
>> the amount of income he receives from a business or company." Although I
>> am only interested in this as a hypothetical situation, it would seem to
>> me that a self-employed non-exec director working for a limited company
>> and for a pittance would not fall foul of this rule for the simple  
>> reason
>> that a non-exec has absolutely no ability whatsoever to control the  
>> amount
>> of income received from the company (be they self-employed or otherwise)
>> as non-execs are specifically *exculded* from any kind of involvement in
>> such decisions to my understanding.
>>
>> Just thinking aloud!
>>
>>> INFO Just digg around in Google using different search phrases
>>
>> (I have googled and googled and googled but then I decided that I still
>> ******* hate Google like the plague so I Dogpiled and AltaVista'd  
>> instead,
>> but I have, as of yet not, found any CSA guidance that deals with the
>> specifics of non-executive directors. Maybe thay just assume that  
>> everyone
>> is a full director? Methinks I will explore some more...)
>>
>> Footnote: I love the way the 'rules' always state "he" when referring to
>> the NRP. Surely there must also be more than one 'she' NRP out there in
>> the wild? ;)
>>
>>> Don't know why things have quietened down, maybe they don't like my
>>> language
>>> hee hee.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>
>