| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
business returns |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
in kind |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| earnings |
income |
between spouses |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
Claimant worked for his wife’s business and generated income from his work. That income was used to pay for house-related expenses. Umpire found that in the circumstances, he was deriving benefit from his work in the form of payment of the couple’s expenses through his wife’s business income resulting from the work he provided himself. BOR had therefore erred in law in deciding to cancel the claimant’s overpayment because while the claimant did not receive payment directly, the money that his wife’s business made from his work was used to pay for the couple’s house-related expenses.
