I've just been told this:

'if a non-dependant is self-employed it is the GROSS income before any deductions for business expenses, tax and nino that is used in the calculations.'

I think you should be taking off expenses but not tax and NI. Can anybody tell me who's right?

The DWP's view is that gross income for non-deps is the amount BEFORE deductions for s/e expenses. HOWEVER....

In my view, it can be STRONGLY argued that "gross income" is the amount AFTER deductions for expenses. There is caselaw to support this approach -

Chief Adjudication Officer v HOGG (1985) CA, 1 WLR 1100
www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/rfis/4_85.pdf

Also, what about a non-dep not making a profit? There is caselaw where it was found that "payment" for work should be considered in the context of profit; not turnover. How does this matter? Simple: a s/e person not making a profit is not in remunerative work, irrespective of hours worked - see HBR 6 and Chief Adjudication Officer v Ellis (1995) CA . "Ellis" can be found on the Upper Tribunal website. Not in "remunerative work" = lower deduction.

I can't see how Ellis can be ignored. On that basis, it would be crazy if Hogg didn't apply.

Taking into account the caselaw currently available, I'd be much more confident representing a claimant at a Tribunal, rather than a LA on this issue.

LAs seem to be split in their opinion. I have posted a similar view on hbinfo and opposing opinions have, on occasion, been expressed quite strongly. However, to date, no one has been able to produce any legal authority (such as CDs / UTDs / caselaw) in support of the opposing argument. Both Hogg and Ellis are Court of Appeal judgements and, as such, are rather important..... The only issue is whether the principles can properly by applied to non-deps. In my view, they can.

i agree with kevin - any tribunal ignoring the court of appeal's view has of course committed an error of law, since the CA rules!

Thanks. That seems to make sense and it would be in lne with the way an employed ndep is treated.