deception under section 322(2)

please tell me any one facing, deception in his previous application for further leave to remain. under section 322(2)
one of my friend facing it as not having paid tax.

Can you give some details as which visa your friend is , how much tax was not paid and is this is a Extension or ILR application.

Provide more details so some body will answer you accordingly .

One of my friend was recently refused ILR because he used fake payslips in his previous tier 1 application. UKBA refused his current application saying HMRC have no record of his previous employment. So 322(2).

He was given right of appeal but its very difficult to proof anything when he knew he was wrong.

The documents are not bad quality they are fraudulent which is quite different.

I wanted to type f a k e payslips but system automatically replaced it with bad quality lol

this was deception of not disclosed proper earning in previous application that why they refused.
now worried alot
total income required show 50k
but inland revenue it was shown: self employment 10 k and 17000 from salary.
what is solution. what plea they can take.

any update of deception or any discussion we should think we need help of each other

please post your review

No solution, face deception on the basis of fraud income shown and still no tax even paid! Abuse of Tier 1 G visa.

Both person who paid money (employer) and applicant should be penalized..

[quote="e_mbh"]any update of deception or any discussion we should think we need help of each other

please post your review[/quote]

Have you amended your tax return with the HMRC and paid what is due?

The question is did the OP actually earn 50K as declared in a previous application or was this a conjured figure. If so, why was only 27K in total declared to the HMRC.

OP is in a predicament. Even if the correct earnings are declared now, HMRC will want to know why false earnings was declared as in such cases the OP has broken the law and, from HMRC’s point of view, is guilty of tax evasion. This means that HMRC can prosecute if they feel the case warrants it.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't change the fact deception was used in a previous application even if corrected now.

People should realise that government agencies do communicate with each other, they are not stupid, you cannot get away with declaring one thing to one agency and another thing to another agency.

OP has declared income what he has earned, The fraudulent income claimed and shown to Home office is not even declared to HMRC,

so two thing, OP is at fault and the employer who paid the income and not paying PAYE tax

argus7 wrote:OP has declared income what he has earned, The fraudulent income claimed and shown to Home office is not even declared to HMRC,

so two thing, OP is at fault and the employer who paid the income and not paying PAYE tax

The OP has stated there are two sources of income, salaried and self employment.

The employer IMO would have followed all the correct steps with respect to PAYE and paying the correct tax.

IMO, it is common and likely to be the self employment income that has been incorrectly declared to HMRC (to pay as little tax as possible).

WR1 wrote:

argus7 wrote:OP has declared income what he has earned, The fraudulent income claimed and shown to Home office is not even declared to HMRC,

so two thing, OP is at fault and the employer who paid the income and not paying PAYE tax

The OP has stated there are two sources of income, salaried and self employment.

The employer IMO would have followed all the correct steps with respect to PAYE and paying the correct tax.

IMO, it is common and likely to be the self employment income that has been incorrectly declared to HMRC (to pay as little tax as possible).

Paying and cutting tax is different. on paysips it looks tax is cut but not declared to HMRC is another thing/

There is very little info to go on. We don't know who the employer is. As far as we know, if it is a large reputable company, its unlikely that tax is incorrectly declared/payed. If it is a small local business, then its a different story. For all we know, since the OP mentioned self employment, he could be paying himself a salary from the business, so employer and OP could be the same person.

In any event, deception was used whether it was from salaried pay or self employment pay or a combination of both.