[Solved] Annual Review

Saying that but if your only putting the Max away as entitled by law as a pension CMS would have no grounds to challenge.

Amazing feedback, thanks again for your support!
Keep up the great work, There are so may Men who needs help and advice.

I think the issue is, if your percentage of pension contributions is far disproportional to your income, then logically it can be seen as a way to avoid paying child maintenance.

If you earn 50K, but pay the maximum allowable 40K into your pension, then this means only 10K is assessed for CM and clearly this is not morally correct, even if legal. I know use of the word 'moral' is subjective, considering some of the tricks our ex's play. But this is also to cover for the Non Resident Parents who do as much as they can to pay nothing, or as little as they can, leaving a family struggling.

So we are left with discussing the tight line of what CMS believes is acceptable alongside what we believe is the appropriate amount to pay. This varies with age and has been discussed on here many times.

Agree with but at the end you have to do what’s best, at the end of the day ex’s will not take care of us/you.

Yes it’s a fine line but if de cable the CMS will not challenge.

i remember seeing a post from a member here, that their ex-partner once paid either 50% or even 100% of their income into their pension lol. that parent was taken to a tribunal by CMS and got in trouble.

That was me, with my ex, and it was indeed 100% - the tribunal discounted ALL of her pension payments (I thought they'd allow, say 20%). My case against her was helped by the fact that she's started the pension within a week of recieving the CSA (it was 15 years ago or so) notification of having to pay me.

Chatting to the guy from CSA immediately after the hearing, he said that it really does depend on individual circumstances, for instance a high earner putting 50% of income away into pension might be allowed if he had a new family, and was middle aged, and needed to start from scratch with pensions, but someone younger might not get away with 50% as they had longer to build up a pension. This wasn't policy, this was how they took a view at the time.

Going back to my earlier post about whether the CMS use the P60 or tax return to get the gross income figure -
as mentioned by someone else on here it seems that they use the latest filed tax return, which may be for an earlier year than the latest P60.
However, in my case the CMS have only used the 'earned' or 'employment' income figure from the tax return and not the overall income figure which includes some unearned property rental income.
This seems a bit strange given that a) the unearned income is also recorded on the tax return they use, and b) the earned income figure that they do use is available earlier from the P60.

Anyway - in my situation for the year in question I have rental property income for the first time. I have offset this additional income by making additional contributions to my workplace pension, so my overall gross income figure is broadly the same as before. However the annual review has only incorporated the reduction in earned income and so my CM payments have reduced by about £100 / month.

Now I know that the right thing to do is tell the CMS about my unearned income, however I am sorely tempted not to and hope that my ex doesn't request a variation (which to be honest is unlikely).
The reason for this is that my ex is reasonably wealthy - she has been able to reduce her working hours to 16 hours per week at her own choice, has no mortgage on either the house that she lives in or the other property she owns which she rents out, and of course she gets the CM money fom me and the Child Benefit money as well.

But I guess that is a common complaint of paying parents - i.e. that the CM amount is based on the paying parent's financial circumstances only and completely disregards the wealth or income of the receiving parent.

it's up to you. if your ex claims a variation about rental income, then CMS will likely make you pay a tonne of back-dated money.

check this out. Millionaire ex opens CMS case against dad:

https://www.dad.info/forum/finance/30283-child-support-if-my-ex-is-a-millionaire

“it's up to you. if your ex claims a variation about rental income, then CMS will likely make you pay a tonne of back-dated money.”

No I don’t think so - this review year is the first time I have had rental income, so there’s none to be uncovered in previous years.

I suppose another option is to calculate what you would have to pay on this income, and put it into a savings account, and let it accumulate. That way, if they come after you for back-dated payments (from when you started receiving the income) then you have the money available, and if not, when the case eventually closes, the money is safe to use.

Don't forget though, I believe it is your responsibility to notify CMS of other income, in theory I think there's a £1,000 fine for failing to do so.

Going back to my earlier post about whether the CMS use the P60 or tax return to get the gross income figure -
as mentioned by someone else on here it seems that they use the latest filed tax return, which may be for an earlier year than the latest P60.
However, in my case the CMS have only used the 'earned' or 'employment' income figure from the tax return and not the overall income figure which includes some unearned property rental income.
This seems a bit strange given that a) the unearned income is also recorded on the tax return they use, and b) the earned income figure that they do use is available earlier from the P60.

Anyway - in my situation for the year in question I have rental property income for the first time. I have offset this additional income by making additional contributions to my workplace pension, so my overall gross income figure is broadly the same as before. However the annual review has only incorporated the reduction in earned income and so my CM payments have reduced by about £100 / month.

Now I know that the right thing to do is tell the CMS about my unearned income, however I am sorely tempted not to and hope that my ex doesn't request a variation (which to be honest is unlikely).
The reason for this is that my ex is reasonably wealthy - she has been able to reduce her working hours to 16 hours per week at her own choice, has no mortgage on either the house that she lives in or the other property she owns which she rents out, and of course she gets the CM money fom me and the Child Benefit money as well.

But I guess that is a common complaint of paying parents - i.e. that the CM amount is based on the paying parent's financial circumstances only and completely disregards the wealth or income of the receiving parent.

Totally understand, Thats what my friend Steve is facing! CMS disregards the wealth and income of the receiving parent.

Hi, pretty new to the site, but must say that the advice and information and support, has been amazing and made me realise that I am not the only father out there, that feels the calculation process is plain madness, giving up my company car to avoid paying extra to ex on the car allowance ( I do not see) and the BIK on the P11D. Always paid for my son, ranging from £705 per month, to now £540, told will raise to £640 as ex stopping me seeing my son (Another story)

I am increasing my pension contributions to circa 45%, my background is contract law, not family, but with the assistance from many contributors, the "diversion of income" argument can be largely dealt with by the case law in place and the recommendations from the judge, in relation to the non-resident parents age, when they started to pay contributions and what level and the CMS own internal guidance, the estimation from the FSA on acceptable pension contributions v age v when you started paying, again, probably not known by many non-residents parents, clearly demonstrates that increasing pension payments, within the guidelines, CMS work to, is not diversion of income

Will update in my progress, mad the CMS makes you have to look at these options, if the assessment process were more fair, this could be avoided

sorry payments are per month, there was a slip, hope my ex doesn't see, will demand I pay this per week !!!