Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
PAYE question
Hello all,
I'm not sure where this should go so will move it if needs be.
My friends grandson had a serious accident and has TBI. As a result he is, to all outward appearances, normal but has 24hr care because of the brain injury, ie 'zones out', epilepcy and recall problems.
His carers (via a care team) take him on holiday, different courses etc take him out and about and make his life as normal as possible etc.
During his holiday away his care team are paid 24/7, includeing all food and drink and are even given �20 a day spends for themselves. If he does a course they are also on the course. One for instance is a silversmith course where they get to keep what they make.
Via him they get to do very expencive things they probably wouldn't be able to afford themselves so have started 'suggesting' more elaborate things for him to do. But that is another issue lol.
Anyway after all this background the question.
Should the carers be paying tax on any of this? especialy the 'spends' when they are away? Are they classed as wrok expences or payments in kind and therefore taxable in the same way that gifts etc are?
Thank you.
I'm not sure where this should go so will move it if needs be.
My friends grandson had a serious accident and has TBI. As a result he is, to all outward appearances, normal but has 24hr care because of the brain injury, ie 'zones out', epilepcy and recall problems.
His carers (via a care team) take him on holiday, different courses etc take him out and about and make his life as normal as possible etc.
During his holiday away his care team are paid 24/7, includeing all food and drink and are even given �20 a day spends for themselves. If he does a course they are also on the course. One for instance is a silversmith course where they get to keep what they make.
Via him they get to do very expencive things they probably wouldn't be able to afford themselves so have started 'suggesting' more elaborate things for him to do. But that is another issue lol.
Anyway after all this background the question.
Should the carers be paying tax on any of this? especialy the 'spends' when they are away? Are they classed as wrok expences or payments in kind and therefore taxable in the same way that gifts etc are?
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am not privvy to payslips etc and am asking the question for the boys family as a back up to the solicitors and care agency etc. They just want information so that they are not speaking out of turn and don't want to ask questions about things that don't matter!
I have no vested interest in any of this. I am simply relaying the questions and information.
He recieves no funding from local authority and pays, through his solicitor and finance manager, for all his own care.
His tbi is such that a care worker could suggest he book a flight to the moon and he would agree. He has a court appointed gaurdian who is remote from the situation and a relative as an advocate. The guardian gets the bills and makes sure they are paid. The advocate is the only 'voice of reason' on a local basis. The care workers company is also remote from him.
Therefore the care workers have a lot of freedom to arrange activities without a great deal of explanation and the advocate realy just wants to know what is reasonable. Should they be given personal spending money and should they have courses paid for them to attend when after the first one to aclimatise Simon they don't need to be there?
Again. When does life enhancing activities become being taken advantage of?
I have no vested interest in any of this. I am simply relaying the questions and information.
He recieves no funding from local authority and pays, through his solicitor and finance manager, for all his own care.
His tbi is such that a care worker could suggest he book a flight to the moon and he would agree. He has a court appointed gaurdian who is remote from the situation and a relative as an advocate. The guardian gets the bills and makes sure they are paid. The advocate is the only 'voice of reason' on a local basis. The care workers company is also remote from him.
Therefore the care workers have a lot of freedom to arrange activities without a great deal of explanation and the advocate realy just wants to know what is reasonable. Should they be given personal spending money and should they have courses paid for them to attend when after the first one to aclimatise Simon they don't need to be there?
Again. When does life enhancing activities become being taken advantage of?
Oh No no no - sorry. What you're saying doesn't ring true.
Your initial question was 'should the carers be paying tax on any of the perks they get'.
That you now say the lad has his own (considerable, by the sound of it) funding, a court appointed guardian, an advocate, and that the whole thing is done through an agency, which presumably has been vetted by the local authorities, and are asking questions about how the money is spent, is totally at odds to your original question.
The question you now seem to be posing is whether this lad's money is being spent wisely. Whole different set of criteria.
The care workers would have to provide an action plan for the agency, and this would have to be agreed with any advocate or guardian prior to booking any activities - especially if it involved paying large sums - so that the money for this could be released in advance. The agency would not pay out for courses, then bill people, as they couldn't afford to take the losses if several people decided not to pay up for any reason.
As I understand it the care workers are not directly employed by the advocate or guardian, so any money they get would not be coming from this lad's estate. It is a personal matter between them and their employers (in this case the agency). If you are suggesting that the agency is invoicing the advocate for personal expenses on behalf of the carers then I would suggest that :-
A - A proper advocate is appointed, as only an idiot would agree to paying the expenses of someone not directly employed by them
B - someone contact the local authorities and ask them exactly what the agency is entitled to invoice for.
C - or change the agency providing the care.
Your initial question was 'should the carers be paying tax on any of the perks they get'.
That you now say the lad has his own (considerable, by the sound of it) funding, a court appointed guardian, an advocate, and that the whole thing is done through an agency, which presumably has been vetted by the local authorities, and are asking questions about how the money is spent, is totally at odds to your original question.
The question you now seem to be posing is whether this lad's money is being spent wisely. Whole different set of criteria.
The care workers would have to provide an action plan for the agency, and this would have to be agreed with any advocate or guardian prior to booking any activities - especially if it involved paying large sums - so that the money for this could be released in advance. The agency would not pay out for courses, then bill people, as they couldn't afford to take the losses if several people decided not to pay up for any reason.
As I understand it the care workers are not directly employed by the advocate or guardian, so any money they get would not be coming from this lad's estate. It is a personal matter between them and their employers (in this case the agency). If you are suggesting that the agency is invoicing the advocate for personal expenses on behalf of the carers then I would suggest that :-
A - A proper advocate is appointed, as only an idiot would agree to paying the expenses of someone not directly employed by them
B - someone contact the local authorities and ask them exactly what the agency is entitled to invoice for.
C - or change the agency providing the care.
-- answer removed --
sorry, you probably feel very got at but the situation is very difficult to understand - you said that 5? people needed to go on the course with him, then you say that one person could acclimatise him to it then leave.
you say the relatives don't want to be asking things that don't matter - i would suggest that what stoppages the carers pay out of any wages they earn would probably fall into this category?
As said before, it's a totally different question whether they are doing inappropriate things with him (i dont mean in a sexual way even thugh it sounds like it!) i couldnt think of a way of putting that sentance that didn't sound dodgy.
Regards tot he advocate i would guess they are getting paid to do the job of advocate? If so, get them to get of their backside and become less remote!
you say the relatives don't want to be asking things that don't matter - i would suggest that what stoppages the carers pay out of any wages they earn would probably fall into this category?
As said before, it's a totally different question whether they are doing inappropriate things with him (i dont mean in a sexual way even thugh it sounds like it!) i couldnt think of a way of putting that sentance that didn't sound dodgy.
Regards tot he advocate i would guess they are getting paid to do the job of advocate? If so, get them to get of their backside and become less remote!
There are five carers. Obviously not all on at the same time (or it would get very crowded lol).
Simon is in the very lucky position of having considerable compensation that should keep him for the rest of his life. Possibly 60 years or more.
The fact he has legal representation doesn't come into the questions being asked here as I have already said this is on behalf of his family. His family advocate does not get paid.
....Oh No no no - sorry. What you're saying doesn't ring true.... Why is that? Is it because the original question has been answered and it is now about something related to the first? or did you want to know all the ins and outs of his legal representation before you gave an oppinion?
I have a personal view on this but it doesn't matter what I think. It is what his family think that counts. They need a bit of advice. When they got it they then wanted to know some more. Would you prefer I clog up the board with the minuet of detail on individual questions? At least this way information can be more easily refered back to.
The second part still needs addressing though. When does life enhancing become carers taking advantage? or is it too subjective?
Simon is in the very lucky position of having considerable compensation that should keep him for the rest of his life. Possibly 60 years or more.
The fact he has legal representation doesn't come into the questions being asked here as I have already said this is on behalf of his family. His family advocate does not get paid.
....Oh No no no - sorry. What you're saying doesn't ring true.... Why is that? Is it because the original question has been answered and it is now about something related to the first? or did you want to know all the ins and outs of his legal representation before you gave an oppinion?
I have a personal view on this but it doesn't matter what I think. It is what his family think that counts. They need a bit of advice. When they got it they then wanted to know some more. Would you prefer I clog up the board with the minuet of detail on individual questions? At least this way information can be more easily refered back to.
The second part still needs addressing though. When does life enhancing become carers taking advantage? or is it too subjective?
Thanks that makes more sense to me - -i thought it would get a bit crowded with 5!
Anyway, if the relative doesn't have the abity to discriminate between smething he does and does not want to do it becomes very dfficult to do anything without it beig open to scrutiny (ie even a course in silver might not be something he actually wants to do)
So it probably really cmes down to the guardian/advocate making the decisions on what is reasonable and what isn't, and if they can't or wont it is even more tricky - who is looking after the money to make sure it DOES last 60 years?
Perhaps though when it comes to racing, it might be best to start with a day out first in case it's clear he doesn't like it
Anyway, if the relative doesn't have the abity to discriminate between smething he does and does not want to do it becomes very dfficult to do anything without it beig open to scrutiny (ie even a course in silver might not be something he actually wants to do)
So it probably really cmes down to the guardian/advocate making the decisions on what is reasonable and what isn't, and if they can't or wont it is even more tricky - who is looking after the money to make sure it DOES last 60 years?
Perhaps though when it comes to racing, it might be best to start with a day out first in case it's clear he doesn't like it
-- answer removed --
Realy it comes down to making sure he isn't being taken advantage of. He enjoys lots of diverse things, as any 28yr old would and he is lucky to have a great deal of money behind him. His family isn't conversent with the law and how things are done so from time to time want to check if they and the carers etc are doing the right thing.
You are right bednobs, I have suggested he has small 'taster outings' before he is thrust into the throng of big events which he doesn't particley cope well with.
The carers make his life fuller and he does seem to enjoy their company so it may appear that his family are being unduely harsh about them. But at the end of the day the carers shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of his ability to pay for things. It should be about what is right and proper.
If truth be known they could easily go on the first course with him and when he is happy being their he should be left to interact with other people. Otherwise his whole life becomes just his carers. But again that is just my opinion.
You are right bednobs, I have suggested he has small 'taster outings' before he is thrust into the throng of big events which he doesn't particley cope well with.
The carers make his life fuller and he does seem to enjoy their company so it may appear that his family are being unduely harsh about them. But at the end of the day the carers shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of his ability to pay for things. It should be about what is right and proper.
If truth be known they could easily go on the first course with him and when he is happy being their he should be left to interact with other people. Otherwise his whole life becomes just his carers. But again that is just my opinion.
-- answer removed --
un1corn, It would be very difficult indeed nye on impossible for me to take advantage of him as I have no link to him whatsoever. But I suppose it is easier for you to think that than read the posts.
ummmm, His family do take him out. They take him on all family outings. Without the carers who have time off. They unlike the carers don't get paid. They do it because he is family and as part of the family he is included as he should be.
ummmm, His family do take him out. They take him on all family outings. Without the carers who have time off. They unlike the carers don't get paid. They do it because he is family and as part of the family he is included as he should be.
-- answer removed --
Am intrigued by what it is the family actually want..
Are they worried that the funds available will be frittered away. Leaving poor quality care and also none for them may be.?
If there is a solicitor and an advocate already in place why are the parents unable to disciuss matters with these people?
Does the young man have a designated social worker?
This may be someone else to support the family and him.
I do not think that the issues you have raised e.g about the tax position of the carers i really any of your business, let the parent s ask those questions.
As i see it if this young man is getting the best care possible and his horizons are being expanded and he is as happy as is possible, then where is the problem.?
Along side of that if he has funds to pay for the best life possible, again what is the problem?
You say that you are a friend of the family , well act like a friend .With your support they should be able to raise any issues of concern with the appropriate peopleand ascertain the ansers.
It is not incumbent upon you to take up the cudgels for them when you are probably not in full possession of the whole picture, nor indeed all of the facts..
Finally , how do you know what outings , visits or experiences are of benefit to this young man , who by the nature of his condition can never experience a normal life.?
I think you are being a tad judgemental about the whole scenario.
Are they worried that the funds available will be frittered away. Leaving poor quality care and also none for them may be.?
If there is a solicitor and an advocate already in place why are the parents unable to disciuss matters with these people?
Does the young man have a designated social worker?
This may be someone else to support the family and him.
I do not think that the issues you have raised e.g about the tax position of the carers i really any of your business, let the parent s ask those questions.
As i see it if this young man is getting the best care possible and his horizons are being expanded and he is as happy as is possible, then where is the problem.?
Along side of that if he has funds to pay for the best life possible, again what is the problem?
You say that you are a friend of the family , well act like a friend .With your support they should be able to raise any issues of concern with the appropriate peopleand ascertain the ansers.
It is not incumbent upon you to take up the cudgels for them when you are probably not in full possession of the whole picture, nor indeed all of the facts..
Finally , how do you know what outings , visits or experiences are of benefit to this young man , who by the nature of his condition can never experience a normal life.?
I think you are being a tad judgemental about the whole scenario.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
For goodness sake it is of no business of mine. I don't ask on my own behalf. Therefore the accusations of arrogance and interferance are unfounded. But I guess it is easier to shoot the messanger.
They are not unhappy with his care as such but are like a lot of people that have been thrust into a situation like this. They have no experience of what is right and proper. They are nervious of asking the legal people in place in the first instance as they need to know things from professionals they would never normaly be in contact with.
We all like a little back up and info before we talk to what they have called 'The Bigiwgs' . That is all they are trying to do. By the way they have no benificial interest in any money he may or may not have when he eventually dies. It all goes to charities that have helped him over the last few years.
They would rather have Simon as Simon was not as he is now. However they have him and as any family would, want only the best for him now and in the future when they aren't able to be around for him anymore.
They are not unhappy with his care as such but are like a lot of people that have been thrust into a situation like this. They have no experience of what is right and proper. They are nervious of asking the legal people in place in the first instance as they need to know things from professionals they would never normaly be in contact with.
We all like a little back up and info before we talk to what they have called 'The Bigiwgs' . That is all they are trying to do. By the way they have no benificial interest in any money he may or may not have when he eventually dies. It all goes to charities that have helped him over the last few years.
They would rather have Simon as Simon was not as he is now. However they have him and as any family would, want only the best for him now and in the future when they aren't able to be around for him anymore.
-- answer removed --
