[Solved] Company Car Court Ruling

Hi

Thanks for the information my allowance is paid into my salary and your correct subject to a tax deduction. However my bupa is not and processed via code change in the same way as a company car, so I'll keep my eye on this thread as maybe its something I can use to off-set the travel allowance.

Hi Chappie,

Your Bupa works in the same way as a Company car in terms of your tax code is adjusted to relate the benefit in kind you receive. Although private medical is not as much as a car it is still normally a change of a few hundred quid on your tax code. Sadly though the way the CMS work seems to be in reverse. For example if you earn £20,000 a year and have Bupa which reduces your tax code by £1000 what they do is work your calculations out on as if you earn £21,000 and not £20,000. This might not seem a great deal but for someone like Tatey and what happened to myself was i had a company car, fully expense fuel card, and private medial cover. It meant my tax code was pretty much non existant. Instead of earning £11,000 "tax free" on a normal tax code, mine was £750. So what the CMS did was add the £10,250 on to my earnings. As you can imagine this changed what they said i should pay in maintenance quite significantly! They couldn't grasp the concept that i was taxed as if i earnt another £10k but didnt actually get that money. And even when i provided my P60 which showed the £10k difference in my earnings to what they said they just dismissed it as it wasn't bigger than 25% so they wouldnt look at it! Caused me to leave my job! I now have my tax code back, take home the same money as i did before, but my payments halved! Work that one out!!

Well I've had the call and yes they still don't get it even When I've pointed out the court case. I've been told to get a letter from hmrc saying I don't get the money in my salary. Spoke to HMRC and actually to my shock they are human and said no problem we will send you a letter. Not holding any hope that it will make difference with the CMS and this is going to be a long slog. Still got a problem with my kids even though I have them every other weekend she's told the CMS I don't and they have now increased the money due to her and said without a court order proving I have the kids or a signed agreement from the mother I have them they are not accepting my work . SEXIST one side organisation the male trying to do right for his children gets battered by a government body only interested in one side.

Couldn't agree with you more Tatey, problem is though mate if they even do take the cc tax into consideration if your real earnings are not 25% less than what they say they will just ignore it anyway! Honestly who works on a 25% tolerance! What did make me laugh when I spoke to them about my cc tax, and they said about the tolerance I said that is ridiculous working on 25% they replied with well you don't have to tell us unless your money goes up by more than 25%! Don't think anyone has ever had that much of a pay rise! And in terms of the mum saying you don't have them, her word is binding! I had this as well even though I had my boys every other weekend she said I didn't have them at all so I had to pay more! Plus on top of that the CMS will overall everyone, even if you have a court order if she says you don't have them they will over rule it! They believe her completely. I've just had this with my eldest, he started his paid apprenticeship this month so under the rules I no longer have to pay for him, when I rang the CMS they said she was still claiming child benefit for him (obviously trying to claim when she isn't entitled to it) so I still had to pay, unless I could prove he was working. Thankfully I know who he is working for and get his contract, haven't heard back from CMS yet but fingers crossed that will be sorted!

What we need not to lose sight off is that the old scheme went to court this year and was found illegal. The calculation is the same thus how can the legality change because they have have a title. At the moment I've hit them every time with the 25% cannot be used as I'm challenging the legality of the calculation which has had them on the back foot. I don't think as of yet this has been put in front of their legal. I'm in a position that requires integration with legal teams regularly and one thing solicitors don't like is surprises and at the moment you have desk jockeys following a process that could if it went to court really [censored] a judge off as , one things judges don't like is desk jockeys ignoring a judges decision . The first thing a judge will ask is has the act been changed that will differ from the last ruling and if no , why are you waisting my time as he / she will not be interested and will hopefully find in mine and all dads favour. That then opens up a claim for overpayment going back years as an illegal calculation was used who pays that ? I'm going to take the fight as far as I can for all dads wrongly hit with a bill for something they don't get but I'm not rich so cost could hinder my progress !

Well I've got my response and surprise surprise my appeal has been rejected on the grounds of its legislation and that the 2012 scheme has not been to court even though it's exactly the same calculation that has been found to be an error in law on the 2003 scheme. I'm left with no alternative other than to press ahead with the tribunal which also I been advised will fail but I've got to do this before I can get it in front of a judge. Surely this is a waist of tax payers money ? On a positive note I've been complemented on my evidence and told I've a very good case against them and they have no defence ! Why the [censored] do I have to go to all this hassle then ?

Technically, they are pprobably correct that it's not been tested in court, so there always has to be a first case to set the precedent.

Update.

Right I know where I went wrong ! 2012 scheme references ITEPA and ITTOA as its basis for the calculations so you need to keep referencing that.
ITEPA defines a car / van via a tax code alteration as NON MONEY EARNINGS.
Section 38 of the 2012 scheme states that income of kind is used in the calculation but , this is where the error is.
Income is treated in 3 ways in this section payments ( money recived) (2) of 38 Bonus ( money recived) (3) of 38 Employment income via Beniefits Code (4 ) of 38 .
It is my understanding that a company car is being treated as subsection 2 of 38 instead of subsection 4 of 38 and there is a big difference as 2and 3 they use the full amount and 4 they divid the value of the Beniefits by 365 and multiply by 7 there is a massive difference here in the calculations .
Awaiting a response and will update you once I get it

Thanks, there is some great information here. I'm only at the very start of the journey but I promised CMS I would be talking this to the top and jump through as many hoops as possible to challenge this calculation.

I've literally come off the phone to set up the new CMS as my CSA arrangement has come to an end.

I was amazed by the new rules and how un fair they are on company car drivers. I have a company provided "job requirement" car, I don't get paid an allowance as the car is leased by the company and supplied to me to drive. I have a fuel card but have my personal Milleage deducted via my salary.

I've just found out that the CMS are going to use an extra 8K to calculate my payments. I was amazed!!!

I questioned the girl on the phone who kept on quoting the 25% rule. In fact she sounded well versed in that reply. I did try to explain that how can you have a percentage of something that I don't actually get paid and suggested I start to sell off parts of the car.

She actually said it does sound unfair when said like that but that's the law and you cant change the law.

I had no choice but to agree and insisted she sent me the official appeal and complaints procedure, along with it being noted on my case notes that I will challenge this all the way to the top.

I'm going to keep an eye on this thread good luck guys!!

I reckon we are never going to get anywhere. Recently when to a tribunal over number of nights stays as my ex said I wasn't having the children. The Judge quote in his summing up that the ex has been dishonest in her application to the CMA, but still rule in her favour. Stating that I need to get a court order even thought the previous CSA was based in the correct number of night.Now have to pay double in maintenance.

😡

Tate,

Any update on your last post?

thanks

Hi awaiting the court date PAK44. letters been sent to my ex wife by the court as she has a right to challenge but she's ignored them and letters sent to the CMS. As it stands the CMS are using TAX law to assist in setting notional values to something that does not have one so basically we are being double taxed . After months of research I have found bits of things that class this approach as unfair so that's all I have to go in with but as this is a tribunal that's all I need to demonstrate.