My wife was placed on a 161T taxcode last month, the same has happened this month. This has resulted in a less than expected equity payment.
A 161T taxcode, from what we can work out is if you earn £100'000 debt notes a year

No notification was recieved by the taxman and the employer is at a loss, "we just do what the tax man says" is the reply to questions.
We have attempted to engage the taxman on the telephone on many occasions over the last 30 days, these calls are lasting 30 mins before we give up, the number is an 0845 ( a charge is made for these calls i presume) (premium rate possibly).
We are given an opportunity to email but only to update personal details. We can write to them (which is what is going to happen next)
So what route do we go down here?
To me at least, the taxman acts with impunity, takes what he wants, without notice and covers his tracks, he makes little effort to be contacted, he will not answer his phone.
I am treating this as an unlawful theft of a sovereign wealth fund. The fund is made up of the sweat equity invested and in return it is given something of 'value' There is a deductable amount called income tax payable on the total amount given in value. The current employment has in place an agreement with the taxman that this deduction will be made direct to the taxman on behalf of the employee.
Now, should the taxman ask for more, the employer complies at will, without question. The employee is not informed of this until they recieve a pay reciept from the employer. Any contact made by the employee to the taxman to question this increase is met with a deafening silence.
Im thinking at this point that the weak link in this chain is always me/us but a freeman knows better.
I think the weak link is the employer.
some questions:
The wife is on a paye scheme, is there any legal reason why?
In my mind, this is a contract of convenience for the taxman, he will say that its a three way contract between them, the employer and the employee, but who gains through this? only the taxman because there is more paperwork for the employer and for the employee no control over its taxation payments.
I doubt if there is a statute that says an employee HAS to be a PAYE.
What if my wife approached the employer and said that they no longer CONSENT to the PAYE scheme and would like to offer them an alternative sweat equity payment method.
They are to be invoiced every month, 1 week before payday, and to be paid on the same payday as all other staff but she is to be paid by cheque. She is to be responsible for her own taxation affairs.
The employer may be required to INFORM the taxman of this.
Now that seems fair enough to me, but what is the legal/lawful understanding on this, what can or will the employer attempt to hide behind, or the reasons given by the employer as to why the above can not happen?
I assume that she is renegotiating a new contract here, going from a PAYE to a self invoicing. But is this just what the employer will say?
Is it not a case of, from a lawful perspective, that all she is doing is invoicing for sweat equity earnt? She has provided the sweat and they between them have agreed an equity or value, everything else is just contracting with the state, a seperate set of shinanigans altogether.
Is there any law that says when you enter a contract of employment that you also automatically enter a contract with the taxman, i dont think so

Or perhaps its the 'contract of employment' is that where the mistake is made and consent is signed away with out our knowledge. We sign a contract of employment but are whar we doing not also a contract of performance, we perform and recieve value for it, a contract of employment offers certain privaligies or rights, but the vast amount are a legal requirment any way?
More questions than answers at this stage.

If the above does pan out as planned, just watch how long it takes the taxman to get in touch. (im saying 48hrs)