[Solved] Company Car Court Ruling

I wonder whether it's worth finding the solicitor who was involved in the original challenge, and seeing if he would be prepared to assist in any way.

I've taken note of these details and also read the case notes on line. I'm just at the early stages of the process which has been difficult to get them to even acknowledge there might be something here as they kept throwing the 25% rule at me. This is going to be a long process but will have a big impact on a lot of awards if I'm right .

Good luck Tatey, i am going to see my solicitor tomorrow regarding this. I have already spoken to him and he was unsure of the rules. However i am bringing my CMS calculation tomorrow and will be challenging their ruling. I'll keep you posted.
BTW where did you find information on the Jan 2016 case. I'm struggling to find any info online.

Hi good luck its km v secretary state for work and pensions

KM v (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (2) AC (CSM) (Child support : calculation of income) [2016] UKUT 14 (AAC) (06 January 2016)

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Upper Tribunal case No. CCS/1655/2015
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

How did it go with your solicitor? I've pressed ahead with the review process with the CMS

Conclusion

22. I reject the Secretary of State’s argument. It involves a misreading of R(CS) 4/08. It is clear that, on the facts of the present case, Mr M’s employer simply made a company car available to him. No party has directed me to any evidence that Mr M received payments akin to a car allowance and I cannot identify any (see paragraphs 3 to 5 above). Accordingly, there is no justification for remitting this case to the FtT for it to carry out an analysis of Mr M’s car usage as set out in R(CS) 4/08.

23. I agree with Mr M that the FtT erred in law by taking into account as earnings the taxable benefit ascribed to his company car. As the case law authorities show, the provision by an employer of a company car for the use of an employee is not a payment in kind. It generates no earnings for the purposes of the 1992 Regulations. Accordingly, any notional valuation of the benefit derived from a company car for income tax purposes must be left out of account in fixing Mr M’s earnings for the purposes of the 1992 Regulations. That explains the decision given at the start of these reasons.

24. The FtT, in granting permission to appeal, suggested the new maintenance calculation scheme might influence the outcome in the present case. The new scheme is contained in the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012. Those Regulations cannot alter the meaning of the 1992 Regulations. While both Regulations have the same parent Act, they are nevertheless self-contained statutory schemes to be interpreted on their own terms.

(Signed on the Original)
E Mitchell
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
6th January 2016

Also please note this is not the 2012 scheme but the one before I'm challenging the 2012 on the same grounds

Hi Tatey,

I wish this was the case with me, last year i had to leave my job as i had a company car and fuel card which basically meant i had a 0 tax code (from memory i think i could earn £780 tax free!)

As a result the CMS calculated my earnings with my taxable benefit added on which meant my calculations were on £10,000 more than i actually earned! I Argued the case with the CMS and even sent in my P60 which showed my earnings for the year as some £10,000 less than they were saying. And their response was, well your real earnings are not 25% less than we are saying so it cant be looked at!!! Who on earth works with a 25% tolerance!!

As a result i had to leave my job and take a roll that paid less and had no company car or fuel card so i could get my tax code back! I managed to get a job that my salary was 25.4% lower than what i had allegedly "earned" the previous tax year, so they had to recalculate my maintenance! Meant that i actually still took home about the same money but my payments virtually halved!

I have recently put a post up on the site, i want to lobby for Child Maintenance to be based on the same amount as Child Benefit is. I dont agree that what a Dad earns should reflect he what he pays. Raising a child costs what it costs why should 1 dad pay more or less than another?

That's a joke shortie.

Again I know what your talking about and the it called non payment in kind that's where your tax code is amended for a benefit but , you don't actually receive money.
Both the fully expensed fuel car and a company car fall into that category so how can the CMS want a percentage of something that you never receive as its only you tax code amended and you don't even benefit from it?

CMS are the most disorganised organisation I've dealt with and so one sided it a joke ?

I'm fingers crossed now speaking after feels link hundreds of calls to someone who actually now grasped what I'm on about. This has now gone to the review department , but I'm not holding my breath they will admit they are wrong even though it was challenged on the old scheme and was found to be non legal .

Tatey,

Mate i really hope you win this, and your right the CMS are just a total shambles. When i fist got the letters of what i had to pay, even the tax office confirmed what was on my P60 was correct.

Sadly though as i eventually found out after numerous calls to different people the CMS work on your Taxable earnings and as a Car and Fuel Card is a Taxable benefit they added that benefit onto my earnings. They never grasped the concept that i was taxed as if i earnt £10k more, so infact i was worse off than a normal person on the same salary. I took a £5k drop in salary and lost car / Fuel and still took home the same, yet my CM payments went down from £600 a month to £325!

What makes you laugh is i had to prove that my earnings this year were going to remain the same at my annual review a couple of weeks ago, which obviously i did. But when i fist started the job im in now i didnt know what my pension contribution would be, so this year i knew that which actually brought the payments down £6 a month. So i said to them well this has been the same for the last 12 months so ive overpaid by £72, i will take that off my next payment, or you can reduce my next 12 month payments down by £6 a month. There response: No you have overpaid you cant get that back, thats gone. Yet i said well if i had underpaid by £6 a month would you make me pay that back? Yes of Course! What a joke.

What us Dads earn should not reflect what we have to pay, like i said on my other post the money we pay is not classed as an income for the mother for any benefits she claims, and no matter what she does with her life, we still have to pay the same! If your ex married a millionaire, im pretty sure they wouldnt need your money, but guess what, you still have to pay based on what you earn!!! And if you married a millionairess and stopped work to look after your new family whilst she went out to her high earning job, guess what they would go after her money as they couldn't get it off you! Yet if you carried on working as a paperboy earning peanuts you would only have to pay peanuts and wouldnt take her money into account! Joke Joke Joke!!!

The issue with this situation is that we don't get paid what the cms said we did.

It is an alteration of a tax code thus no actual money is paid to the farther and that was upheld by a judge and they are still doing it.

If it was a bank or a normal organisation we could complain to an organisation independent of the process and it would be sorted.

They hide behind the fact it is very hard and expensive to fight them and threaten you with their powers to get you to just give in.

I'm current in the process of a tribunal with the CMA not in relation to company car but access travel allowance I'm paid due to my company moving offices,

The arbitrator flatly refused to take this sum always from the calculations, meaning I now have to pay maintenance on an amount that I don't take home in my pay.

Wonder if I could use this case on my review next year?

Any help appreciated .

Hi Chappie

I'm not a legal expert but I am an expert on company vehicles as I run of the largest fleet in the uk.

I don't know exactly how this transaction is processed via your wages so I will try and break it down so you can make a judgement.

If an actual payment is made in your salary that is subject to a tax deduction then, that will be classed as income for the process.

if your company provides you a company car that is subject to the Benefit in kind rules, no actual payment is made to the driver, it is an alteration of the tax code. The judge ruled that as no physical payment is made then it cannot be included in a calculation because you cannot have a % of a physical zero payment.

I'm still awaiting a response from the CMS on this challenge But they where given an opportunity in court and could not overturn the decision.

I'm expecting them to reject my challenge as that what they do to bully you into submission but I'm not going to give up until they can demonstrative that the law has been changed. It's the first time I've had the power.